Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Progress in Aerospace Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paerosci

Designing airspace for urban air mobility: A review of concepts

and approaches
Aleksandar Bauranov a, Jasenka Rakas b, *
a
Harvard University, Graduate School of Design, Cambridge, MA, 02138, United States
b
University of California, Berkeley, National Center of Excellence for Aviation Operations Research (NEXTOR III), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
107B McLaughlin Hall, Berkeley, CA, 94720, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The article brings together the academic and industry literature on the design and management of urban
Advanced air mobility airspace. We analyze the proposed airspace concepts, identify their strengths and weaknesses, point to gaps in
Urban air mobility research, and provide recommendations for a more holistic approach to designing urban airspace. We first
Airspace structure
identify the structural factors that define the size, capacity, and geometry of urban airspace. These factors are
Airspace design
Safety-capacity tradeoff
grouped into four categories: safety-related factors, social factors, system factors, and aircraft factors. Second, we
Public domain review different urban airspace concepts proposed around the world. Third, we assess the airspace concepts
based on the identified factors. Most of the reviewed airspace concepts are idealized as abstract networks, with
an emphasis on maximizing safety and capacity, and with little regard for factors such as technological
complexity, noise, or privacy. Additionally, we find that the airspace structure directly influences the level of
safety, efficiency, and capacity of airspace. On the one hand, air vehicles in less structured airspace have more
degrees of freedom. They can freely choose their position, altitude, heading, and speed, which increases airspace
capacity and reduces flying costs. However, these concepts require high technological capabilities, such as dy­
namic geofences and advanced sense-and-avoid capabilities, to maintain the required safety levels. On the other
hand, airspace concepts with fewer degrees of freedom can accommodate less capable aircraft but require strict
operation rules and reduced capacity to ensure safety. Finally, the proposed urban air mobility concepts require
extensive ground infrastructures, such as take-off and landing pads and communication, navigation, and sur­
veillance infrastructure. There is a need for a new branch of research that analyzes urban air mobility from the
perspective of urban planning, including issues around zoning, air rights, public transportation, real estate
development, public acceptance, and access inequalities.

1. Introduction
The idea of Urban Air Mobility (UAM), coupled with the techno­
logical development in automation and electricity storage, has spurred
growth in the urban aviation industry. The concept of UAM comprises a
set of rules, procedures, and technologies that enable air traffic opera­
tions of cargo and passengers in the urban environment. UAM is a part of
the Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), a joint initiative of the FAA, NASA,
and the industry to develop an air transportation system that moves
passengers and cargo with new electric (i.e. green) air vehicles in
various geographies previously underserved by traditional aviation [1].
Companies worldwide are racing to create urban aircraft prototypes
and, in partnership with major aerospace suppliers, certify the
technologies for urban flying. This push is putting pressure on cities and
government agencies to create rules for using urban airspace, which is
not an easy task considering the differences in air vehicle designs and
sizes, maneuverability, speed, take-off procedures, automation, sur­
veillance, and communication capabilities. These differences make it
difficult for air vehicles to use the airspace safely and efficiently and
require a standardized set of flying rules and procedures [2].
Today, unmanned aerial systems (UAS), also known as unmanned air
vehicles (UAV), or colloquially, drones, are used in civilian applications
such as recreation [3], traffic monitoring [4], disaster monitoring [5],
fire detection [6], infrastructure inspection [7], mapping [8], forestry
[9], and agriculture [10]. These operations, although numerous, are
usually contained within specific geographic regions and still do not

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: bauranov@gsd.harvard.edu (A. Bauranov), jrakas@berkeley.edu, jrakas@berkeley.edu (J. Rakas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2021.100726
Received 28 September 2020; Received in revised form 4 May 2021; Accepted 4 May 2021
Available online 8 June 2021
0376-0421/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
A. Bauranov and J. Rakas
pose a substantial risk to the everyday operation of the National
Airspace System (NAS). However, proposed urban, suburban, and
exurban air traffic is expected to create operational and safety chal­
lenges that might significantly impact the NAS.
Proposed operations will most likely be conducted by electric man­
ned and unmanned air vehicles with vertical take-off and landing. Un­
like a traditional helicopter, new air vehicles use multiple motors and
propellers, electric engines, and lighter materials, which make them
cheaper [11], quieter [12], and more efficient [13]. The operations are
expected to cover both urban [14,15] and rural [16] regions. The op­
erators will compete for the same limited space, which will push the
industry to adopt smaller separation standards [17]. For this reason,
several agencies are developing frameworks for managing urban
airspace and ensuring safety.
This article aims to analyze the leading proposals for managing
urban airspace, find their commonalities, and point to the best practices
in airspace design. We seek to identify and analyze structural factors that
define the physical structure of urban airspace. By “physical structure of
urban airspace,” we consider the position and size of airspace elements
such as flying trajectories, tubes, corridors, and layers, as well as their
associated rules of operations.
2. The need for urban airspace
The inability of the current air traffic management (ATM) system to
manage urban airspace is the primary inhibitor of the development of
urban air transportation [17]. Several challenges impede the integration
of the existing NAS operations and urban operations: 1) higher number
of operations, 2) greater density of operations, 3) lower altitudes of
operations, and 4) varying performance of different operators and air
vehicles [18]. These challenges stretch the capabilities of the
current-day air traffic control (ATC) system and indicate the need for
significant changes in the current system.
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) classifies
airspace into controlled and uncontrolled airspace, using seven classes
(A, B, C, D, E, F, and G), depending on air traffic services provided and
flight requirements. Controlled airspace covers Classes A, B, C, D and E,
while uncontrolled airspace covers Classes F and G. Each airspace class
contains a set of rules indicating exactly how aircraft should fly and in
what way ATC must interact with such aircraft. Therefore, ICAO defines
each airspace class by the type of flight it services (instrument flight
rules (IFR), visual flight rules (VFR)), provided separations (all aircraft,
IFR flown aircraft from VFR flown aircraft, no separation), the type of air
traffic service (ATC, traffic information about VFR flights, flight
Fig. 1. Airspace classes in the US in accordance with ICAO guidelines [20].
2
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726
information service), speed limitation and altitude, radio communica­
tion requirements (continuous two-way, no communication), and ATC
clearances [19].
ICAO, as a regulatory body, allows its member states to select
airspace classes that fit their requirements. For example, in the United
States (Fig. 1), controlled airspace consists of Class A and B airspace
(where clearance from air traffic control is mandatory), Class C and D
airspace (where two-way ATC communications are mandatory), and
Class E airspace (where it is not mandatory to contact the ATC or to
obtain clearance to enter). These five classes are further divided by al­
titudes: Class A, between altitudes 18,000 and 60,000 ft above sea level;
Class B, around the nation’s busiest airports; Class C, around medium-
sized airports; Class D, around smaller airports with air traffic control
towers; and Class E, around smaller airports without air traffic control
towers. Uncontrolled airspace, defined as Class G, is airspace below
1200 ft, not equipped with any air traffic management service, where
pilots rely on visual flight rules (VFR). Class F airspace is not used [20].
Within the classes of airspace, safety is preserved by maintaining a
required separation between two aircraft.
Nearly all aircraft operations in controlled airspace today are
managed under an airspace-based operation. In airspace-based opera­
tion, separation management and trajectory assignment are transferred
from one sector to another and handled by controllers within each
sector. Airspace-based operations are unlikely to be feasible for the UAM
because urban flights are likely to occur in all airspace classes, except
Class A [21]. One way of integrating UAM operations with the current
system is to increase its capacity and enable ATC to control and manage
all the operations within the respected airspace classes [21]. However,
this approach requires a drastic overhaul in all aspects of NAS, which is a
long and expensive process. It is more likely that UAM operations will be
conducted within a separate, newly created airspace with a new set of
rules and standards [22].
Such a system will be more complex than the airspace under ICAO’s
current seven classes of airspace. The difficulty of safely separating air
vehicles in dense urban airspace can be reduced through the careful
design of additional airspace structures as they can minimize complexity
and increase throughput [23]. There is, however, no clear consensus on
the type of airspace design that should be implemented. As presented in
Section 4, several studies argue that predefined paths and zones are
required to handle high traffic densities [1,22,24], while others argue
that airspace should be unrestricted and open only to fully autonomous
vehicles [25,26]. Most studies start from the proposition that the
airspace structure should be optimized for capacity and safety. It is
implied that the optimal airspace design is achieved by minimizing
A. Bauranov and J. Rakas
damage (collisions with buildings and other aircraft) while maximizing
capacity and throughput. In section 3, we show that safety and capacity
are only two of the multiple variables required to design functioning
urban airspace.
3. Factors that determine the geometry of urban airspace
We start by conceptualizing how different factors might have a
physical effect on urban airspace. Safety considerations (and common
sense) require aircraft to avoid collisions with buildings. Buildings are
then the “no-fly” zones where flying is, understandably, prohibited. The
space outside of the no-fly zone can be used for flying. A factor, in this
case, safety, creates a spatial envelope, where everything inside the
envelope is a no-fly zone, and everything outside it is open for flying, as
presented in Fig. 2a. A step further would be to consider another factor,
such as wind gusts, that create unsafe flying space in the proximity of tall
buildings. Again, this unsafe space could be visualized by a clearance
envelope that defines the outer boundary of the no-fly zone. As we add
more factors, the clearance envelope expands, as does the no-fly zone.
The resulting airspace fills the space beyond the no-fly zone, which is
created by superimposing different clearance boundaries of all the
considered factors (Fig. 2).
We use this logic to identify the factors that might restrict movement
and influence the position of space open to flying. The factors are
divided into four groups: 1) safety-related factors, 2) social factors, 3)
operational factors related to the characteristic of the system, and 4)
operational factors related to aircraft characteristics.
Fig. 2. Clearance depends on the selected variables: (a) obstacle avoidance; (b) wind gusts; (c) privacy; (d) noise; (e) clearance envelope; (f) resulting airspace.
3
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726
3.1. Safety-related factors
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has identified the safety
of people, vehicles, and property as the most important factor for the
successful adoption of urban air mobility [1]. Safety can be improved by
reducing risk. Risk is reduced by lessening the severity of the accident or
lowering the likelihood that an accident will occur. In the context of
airspace, risk cannot be eliminated altogether, but it can be reduced by
avoiding objects, areas with turbulences, and areas with weather that
can endanger the flight.
3.1.1. Object avoidance
The idea of defining urban airspace as a space free of buildings can be
found in Refs. [25,27–29]. Control algorithms identify the obstacle
space, while the remaining space is open to flying. Apart from avoiding
buildings, aircraft also need to maintain a safe separation from other
aircraft and minimize the probability of a mid-air collision [30]. Sepa­
ration from other objects is the cornerstone of the safety of the tradi­
tional Air Traffic Management system. Present-day separation standards
are unambiguous: two aircraft cannot be separated by less than 5
nautical miles (NM) en-route and 3 NM in the terminal area using radar
wake vortex separation, or 1.5 min using time-based wake turbulence
separation [31]. However, these distances are too prohibitive and not
suitable for urban air traffic. The concept of separation in UAM is being
reimagined since fixed distance spacing is proving to be too rigid for
UAM operations. The literature suggests three distinct approaches to
defining separation in UAM:
A. Bauranov and J. Rakas Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726

1. Fixed separation - The traditional way of defining separation is to

determine a distance all users must maintain. Since 3NM is too large
for urban environments, some authors suggest smaller separation
standards, such as 0.3NM, or even 0.1NM horizontal and 100 ft
vertical separation [32], or 0.36NM horizontal and 450 ft vertical
separation [33]. These authors argue that UAM aircraft are much
smaller and nimbler, which allows reduced separation. As the sys­
tems become more mature, separation standards can change [34].
2. Dynamic separation - The second approach is so-called dynamic
separation, a predetermined distance unique for each aircraft based
on its class [35,36]. Each aircraft has different technological capa­
bilities and characteristics. High-capability aircraft require smaller
separations because they can detect and avoid nearby aircraft
effectively, or their systems can predict the trajectories in advance
and prevent the incident. In comparison, a poorly equipped aircraft Fig. 3. Geofence “SafeGuard” developed by NASA [48].
may require larger separation due to limited maneuverability [26,
37]. Therefore, the capacity of airspace depends on the features of
wind and buildings creates eddies that cause sudden changes in wind
the aircraft within that airspace, and it changes as new users enter
speed and direction (Fig. 4). Aircraft’s energy consumption can increase
the airspace [27]. Some authors argue that distance-based separation
due to the additional power required to maintain a steady flight. More
needs to be abandoned altogether and replaced with time-based
importantly, wind gusts can cause loss of control and overcome the
thresholds that account for aircraft performance and maneuver­
aircraft’s ability to maintain position, altitude, and stability [51].
ability [38].
Urban canyons and even individual buildings can cause flows with
3. No standardized separation - Currently, flights in Class G airspace do
significant levels of turbulence [53–55], which can endanger the
not receive separation guidance from the air traffic controllers [18].
aircraft. Even the most advanced trajectory control algorithms cannot
Safety is ensured through the “see and avoid” approach, where the
guarantee accurate navigation or object avoidance in unpredictable
pilot visually maintains a safe distance from other aircraft. A tech­
wind environments [56]. One of the reasons is that wind velocity is
nological equivalent to see-and-avoid is sense-and-avoid [39–41], a
difficult to predict [57] and wind turbulences can happen in locations
mix of hardware and software that enables UAV to detect obstacles
where they were not expected [58]. Studies show that wind gusts can
and steer away from them. Smaller UAVs do not have the required
affect the altitude [59,60] and position of urban aircraft [61,62] and
payload or energy capacity to use radars or LIDARs, and most
that in these situations, the autopilot can “overcorrect” and deviate from
sense-and-avoid systems rely on cameras to scan their surroundings
the planned path [63], which can cause a collision. Some drone manu­
[37]. Although simple, this approach of avoiding collisions is
facturers specify that small air vehicle can tolerate a wind speed up to
essentially a greedy algorithm where each UAV looks only to resolve
10 m/s; however, initial tests by NASA show that small UAS cannot
imminent conflict. In a dense traffic environment, uncoordinated
safely fly in wind flow with speeds greater than 5 m/s [64].
“greedy” routing reduces airspace throughput and safety. Although
Should areas with wind gusts be avoided, or can high-precision al­
sense and avoid cannot solve navigation and safety problems on its
gorithms and propellers maintain the control under sudden winds? Early
own, it is one of the prerequisites for safe urban flying [40–42].
experiments show that control cannot always be maintained [65] and
that areas with wind gusts should be avoided [52].
Sense-and-avoid is not the only method of navigating through a
dense urban environment. Strategic, trajectory-based collision avoid­
3.1.3. Weather
ance is a necessary complement to the sense-and-avoid procedure, as it
In aviation, adverse weather conditions regularly cause delays and
further reduces the likelihood of an incident [27–29]. Apart from the
cancellations of airline flights. In any given year, between 25% and 50%
sense-and-avoid approach, collision avoidance can be done by strategic
of all aviation accidents are weather-related [61]. However, the severity
collision avoidance algorithms [28,43], avoidance maps [44], and
of weather-related accidents has been steadily reduced due to better
path-planning [36,38,45].
nationwide weather prediction and warning systems [66]. Although
In addition to separation, sense-and-avoid, and collision avoidance
traditional aviation has benefited from these technological improve­
procedures, risk can also be reduced by using geofences. Geofence is a
ments, they are not accurate enough to provide real-time support to
virtual airspace boundary that prohibits or restricts access to some or all
urban operations [67]. This gap is a severe constraint to UAM integra­
aircraft to a specific part of airspace [46]. Objects on the ground, such as
tion, mainly because the weather can disrupt urban air traffic through:
critical infrastructure (airports, high voltage pylons, hospitals) or pro­
tected areas (military bases, recreational areas, nature reserves) are the
● Reduced mission endurance – Strong winds can decrease battery
most likely candidates for geofences. Geofence concepts were proposed
performance and interfere with the integrity of the flight. Precipi­
by The European Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment (EURO­
tation can increase resistance to the movement of aircraft and cause
CAE) [47] and The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
the malfunction of onboard electronics. Low temperatures can
(NASA) [46], as shown in Fig. 3.
decrease battery life. Icing can build up on airframes or propellers
In more general terms, geofences can be static and dynamic. Static
and increase the weight of the drone.
geofences can be used to define flying corridors [40] and support
● Reduced safety – Wind and storms can be dangerous to low altitude
obstacle avoidance [49]. Dynamic geofences can be inserted into the
aircraft due to the lack of space to correct position, heading, or
airspace at any point as a result of ongoing events, emergency missions,
altitude. Changes in barometric pressure can cause miscalibration of
or severe weather. Once the geofences are set, the remaining space is
altimeter and cause altitude errors. Visibility and low ceiling could
open for flying, and the resulting flying path may or may not consider
reduce the effectiveness of sense-and-avoid avionics.
additional factors such as third-party risk [50].
Weather risks can be reduced by creating dynamic geofences that
3.1.2. Wind gusts
move with the weather. However, a dynamic geofence is only as good as
According to the National Weather Service, a wind gust is a brief,
the weather forecasts supporting it. Accurate forecasts are critical to
sudden increase in wind speed. In urban environments, friction between

4
A. Bauranov and J. Rakas Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726

Fig. 4. Wind speed and direction around a building. Source: [52].

UAM safety [68] and route planning [69], especially because weather show that, even at the same decibel levels, drones generate sound that is
avoidance procedures decrease flight endurance of en-route aircraft more annoying to the listeners than the sound generated by a car.
[70]. Another study by NASA suggests that the listener’s annoyance may in­
crease with the number of propellers [92] since a human ear is sensitive
not only to volume but also to the frequency of sound. These results
3.2. Social factors
indicate that high-frequency noise produced by drone propellers might
generate pushback even if the sound volume (in decibels) is within
Local communities have increasingly influenced the operations of
acceptable limits.
airlines and airports in their jurisdictions [71]. Flights occurring at low
The volume and frequency of sound also depend on the listener’s
altitudes may expose individuals to negative externalities such as air
distance from the source. Propeller sound decreases by about 6 dB with
pollution, noise, degradation of the living environment or reduction in
every doubling of distance from the source [87], which means that the
property values [72]. UAM operations will most likely occur at lower
level of noise exposure can be controlled by defining flight paths closer
flight levels and closer to residential neighborhoods than traditional
or farther away from the residential areas. Rather than relying solely on
airline operations, and thereby increase the likelihood of community
quieter engines to reduce community noise, operators will need to adjust
opposition to the development of urban airspace. Studies suggest that
flying paths to minimize the exposure to sound [93]. The adjustment of
UAM might be constrained by social factors such as the perception of
flying routes may be made proactively by designing airspace to reduce
safety, security, privacy, ownership, liability, regulation [73], noise,
noise exposure or reactively in response to landowners’ lawsuits and
visual pollution, air pollution, and equity [74]. The final definition of
community opposition.
airspace structures will mostly depend on noise, visual pollution, and
privacy concerns.
3.2.2. Visual pollution
Visual disturbances in residential neighborhoods are likely to create
3.2.1. Noise
localized pushback as low-level flights might be visually undesirable
Several studies have highlighted noise as the key constraint to the
[94]. In one of the few articles on the subject [95], the authors con­
implementation of UAM [15,74–76]. The International Civil Aviation
ducted a text-mining semantic analysis to investigate a general senti­
Organization (ICAO) has concluded that UAM noise will cause a sig­
ment toward drones and found that the public will likely be annoyed by
nificant level of annoyance [77]. Noise can interfere with daily activities
small aircraft because they clutter the visual field and create shadows. A
and sleep, which causes stress-related symptoms [78]. Sleep disturbance
survey by Airbus found that 45% of respondents are concerned about
reduces the quality of life and causes health issues [79–81]. Community
visual pollution [96]. The way to combat it would be to create routes
opposition to noise is already a significant consideration for airports and
that fly over less-populated areas or water. A whitepaper by Uber [15]
airlines [82,83]. The FAA imposes noise limits for various types of
points out that visual pollution concerns can be addressed via trip route
aircraft, but it is anticipated that stricter standards will be required for
modifications to avoid particularly sensitive vistas or by consolidating
urban aviation [84,85]. Adverse effects of noise in a community can be
traffic to existing transportation corridors such as above highways. So­
reduced by manufacturing quieter air vehicles or setting up flying routes
cial scientists argue that drones can be viewed as usurpers taking over
that reduce noise exposure.
people’s right to the city and air [97]. In popular literature and media,
Reducing UAM noise will not be simple [86]. The volume and the
dystopian urban environments are usually presented as spaces cluttered
frequency of a sound primarily depend on its source, which in the case of
with small aircraft (Fig. 5), which might influence real-world public
drones are motors, propellers, and airframes [87,88]. Although an
sentiment and UAM acceptance.
electric engine in a modern multi-copter has significantly lower engine
noise than a helicopter, the propellers create a high-frequency sound
that cannot be easily eliminated [89,90]. The initial tests by NASA [91]

5
A. Bauranov and J. Rakas Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726

able to accommodate aircraft of all levels of performance. The second

approach, promoted mainly by the industry, argues that aircraft should
select their preferred routes while maintaining safety with onboard
technology, such as sense-and-avoid. It follows that aircraft with inad­
equate technological capabilities would not be able to enter the airspace.
The advantages of one approach over the other depend on, among
others, the maturity of the system. NASA proposed stages of the devel­
opment of UAM, called NASA’s UAM Maturity Levels [107], presented
in Table 1. In the early stages, when both aircraft and management
systems’ technological capabilities are limited, it is reasonable to expect
limited operations constrained to selected regions [108]. A government
aviation agency (such as the FAA in the US) will maintain its regulatory
authority, but the operations will not be managed by air traffic control.
As technology advances, higher integration between the operator and
management system could be achieved.
Fig. 5. Dronepolis: a dystopian view of UAM [98].

3.3.2. Communication, navigation, and surveillance

3.2.3. Privacy
Significant technological improvements are required in all three as­
Issues of privacy are exacerbated in residential and business areas. A
pects of the communication, navigation, and surveillance (CNS) system.
successful airspace concept should ensure that air vehicles do not create
The existing UAVs mainly rely on simple point-to-point communication
a sense of intrusion on the human environment [99,100]. In a de­
over the unlicensed band, which is unreliable, insecure, and can only
mocracy, a person does not have to justify the desire for privacy, the
operate over a very limited range. Technologies currently not used in
state must justify its violation. Legal scholars agree that the argument
traditional aviation, such as LTE and 5G-and-beyond cellular services, as
that “no privacy problem exists if a person has nothing to hide” is not
well as satellite links will be required to facilitate communication be­
valid [101]. Saying you do not care about privacy because you have
tween aircraft and traffic control. However, wireless communication
nothing to hide is to say you do not care about freedom of speech
face many challenges, including availability, latency, use-of-power, and
because you have nothing to say [102]. It is to assume that no one has
security issues. Further developments are needed to enable safe UAM
anything to conceal, including political and religious beliefs, immigra­
operations. For a detailed review of the emerging communication
tion status, or health records. In addition to recognizing the importance
technologies in UAM, see Refs. [109,110].
of privacy, it is important to understand that there are multiple types of
The availability and accuracy of GPS can also be a problem. In the
privacies that should be safeguarded: privacy of the person, of behavior
urban environment, buildings can block satellites from direct line of site
and action, of communication, of data and image, of thoughts and
to the GPS receiver, which can cause errors in navigation or completely
feelings, location and space, of association [103]. The specific privacy
block the signal. Moreover, atmospheric conditions can cause a varia­
type associated with UAM is difficult to define, given drones’ diverse
tion in the precision of GPS positioning. An experiment [111] measuring
capabilities and applications. For example, aircraft equipped with
a flight path precision of a drone in an urban environment showed that
cameras can capture images that can provide information about people’s
the drone deviated up to 2 m from the expected flight path. However, in
location, behavior, and activity patterns [103].
a few situations, the drone deviated 5 m or more. Other studies on GPS
The arguments for safeguarding privacy might sound outdated. After
accuracy found that in city canyons the positioning drift can be over 20
all, people relinquished privacy when they bought a smartphone.
m due to signal blockage [112]. While there are no official FAA stan­
However, the issue of UAM acceptance is less about the ownership of
dards on the maximum allowable difference between the estimated
private data and more about the perception of privacy. UAM operations,
position and the true position of a drone, some authors argue that the
which occur in low altitude airspace, may accentuate annoyance over
error should not exceed 3 m [113], which indicates that either GPS
the proximity of the flights and the perceived privacy loss [104]. And
needs to be improved, or new technologies need to be developed to
experience from airport development shows just how powerful annoyed
sustain higher technical capability levels of UAM.
citizens can be. The main two factors expected to affect the perception of
Higher positional accuracy could be achieved by using an image-
privacy are the number of flights and their altitude. These factors are
based navigation system, cooperative navigation, or signals and addi­
nearly entirely dependent on the decisions about the design of airspace.
tional ground infrastructure. For example, a combination of GPS and
cellular networks can reduce error down to 15 cm [114], or in some
3.3. Operational factors – system cases, even down to 2 cm [112]. Only experiments and experience will
show which level of navigational precision is required for safe UAM.
The scalability of air traffic control is one of the critical constraints Reducing error from 5 m to 1 m will undoubtedly improve the safety of
for the operation of UAM [17]. The FAA estimates that there are 1.7
million drones in the US at the end of 2020 [105], seven times larger Table 1
than combined airline and general aviation fleets. Accommodating such NASA’s UAM maturity levels (UML) [107].
traffic requires new and innovative system-wide solutions in air traffic State UML Description
management, communication, navigation, and surveillance.
Initial 1 Early operation exploration and demonstrations in limited
environments.
3.3.1. Air traffic management system 2 Low-density and low-complexity commercial operations
The main challenges in air traffic management are airspace inte­ with assistive automation.
gration, separation, contingency management, capacity, traffic flow Intermediate 3 Low-density, medium-complexity operations with
comprehensive safety assurance automation.
management, and scheduling [106]. If aircraft in urban airspace can
4 Medium-density operations with collaborative automated
freely select their routes, speed, and altitude, the air traffic management systems.
system needs to be technologically advanced to facilitate that selection. Mature 5 High density and complexity operations with highly-
There are two approaches to thinking about managing urban air integrated automated networks.
traffic. The first, proposed by the FAA and NASA [1,2], argues that the 6 Ubiquitous UAM operations with system-wide automated
optimization.
air traffic management system should be centralized and technologically

6
A. Bauranov and J. Rakas Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726

the system. However, even the most precise GPS systems are for naught Table 2
if the signal is not available. The improvements in accuracy should be Levels of autonomy by DroneII [119].
followed by improvements in availability. LEVEL DESCRIPTION CONTROL USE
Traditional radars are inadequate for the surveillance of low-altitude
0 No automation Pilot in full control. Recreational drones
UAM operations. Some operators propose the use of automatic depen­ 1 Pilot assistance Pilot in control, drone Inspection and
dent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B); however, in high-density envi­ controls at least one vital maintenance,
ronments, the ADS-B frequency band will likely be oversaturated [115]. function. photography,
Advanced surveillance systems that overcome ADS-B limitations should monitoring
2 Partial Pilot is responsible, drone Mapping, surveying,
be developed [116]. Higher freedom of flight will require more so­ Automation controls heading, altitude spaying and seeding in
phisticated CNS technology, and organizations that present new con­ and speed. agriculture
cepts for urban air traffic need to explicitly address the shortcomings of 3 Conditional Pilot is a backup; drone Mapping, surveying
current technologies. Automation performs all functions
given a set of conditions.
4 High Drone in control under a Photography, filming,
3.3.3. Capacity Automation fixed set of rules. Human delivery
Government agencies agree that airspace should be able to accom­ may not be needed.
modate all air vehicles, regardless of their capabilities and sizes [1,2, 5 Full Automation Drone in control, no Passenger transport
117]. Decisions and projections about capacity will determine the expectation of human
intervention.
design of airspace. These decisions include the layout of airspace ge­
ometries, air traffic control, traffic mix, and separation. The conse­
quences of inadequate capacity are ground delay, airborne delay,
increased cost of entering the airspace as well as a possible prioritization Table 3
of airspace for specific classes. However, capacity is constrained by Levels of autonomy by NATO [120].
safety, as well as other factors presented here, and should be determined LEVEL DESCRIPTION CAPABILITY
as one of the many variables in a multivariant optimization. 1 Remotely controlled system Actions depend on operator input.
2 Automated system Actions depend on fixed built-in
3.4. Operational factors – vehicles functionality (preprogrammed).
3 Autonomous non-learning Actions depend upon a fixed set of rules.
system
The design of airspace depends on the characteristics of aircraft that 4 Autonomous learning system Actions depend upon a set of rules that
use airspace. These aircraft differ in size, speed, maneuverability, au­ with the ability to modify can be modified for continuously
tonomy, and CNS capabilities. The resulting airspace will need to rules improving goal directed reactions.
reconcile these differences.

3.4.1. Aircraft type and aircraft mix Table 4

In traditional aviation, the size and maneuverability of an aircraft are Levels of autonomy by National Institute of Standards and Technology [121,
important factors in airport planning. They set the dimensional re­ 122].
quirements of airport infrastructure and flying procedures. Similar to LEVEL DESCRIPTION CAPABILITY
traditional aviation, the design of landing and take-off pads and airspace
1 Remote control No tactical behavior.
structures depends on the type of aircraft. Characteristics such as 2 High-level human Low-level tactical behavior in simple
weight, wingspan, speed, range, materials, maximum altitude, and input environment.
endurance provide a basis for classification and identification [8,118]. 3 Mid-level human Multi-functional missions in moderate
input environment.
As the new air vehicles emerge, it is crucial to identify their differences
4 Low-level human Collaborative, high-complexity missions in
and similarities with the existing aircraft and to determine how the mix input difficult environment.
of these vehicles impacts the constraints of airspace. As the industry of 5 No human input All missions in extreme environments.
aircraft manufacturing advances, airspace needs to be flexible to
accommodate and integrate new types of vehicles.
controllers or the designers of the system will need to separate their
3.4.2. Level of autonomy operations.
Automation could overcome some of the deficiencies of the air traffic
management system or CNS system and could increase the robustness of 3.4.3. Energy efficiency
the system against interference. As the level of autonomy increases, it is The endurance of batteries imposes severe constraints on the oper­
expected that urban airspace will be able to accommodate an increasing ational time of an electric UAM aircraft. Several solutions have been
number of aircraft. However, there are multiple definitions of levels of proposed, including a more efficient rotor configuration [124], the use
autonomy. For example, DroneII [119] proposed six levels (Table 2), of novel lightweight materials [125], and dumping exhausted battery
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) [120] defined four modules out of the aircraft in flight [126]. A most realistic option,
levels (Table 3), The National Institute of Standards and Technology however, is to select trajectories that minimize energy consumption [12,
[121,122] proposed a framework of five levels (Table 4), and Air Force 127–129]. In Ref. [127], the authors proposed an energy-efficient
Research Laboratory [123] proposed ten levels of autonomy (Table 5). path-planning strategy for a hexacopter. The authors found that the
The first step in creating a single UAM airspace would be to adopt a best results are achieved by flying at lower altitudes and by flying a
single classification for aircraft autonomy and, based on it, create pro­ shallower descent. Another study found that cruise efficiency drops with
cedures and rules of flying. Despite many classifications and levels, the an increase in cruise altitude [12].
common features that define the level of autonomy are control, What is evident is that the operators and individual aircraft will look
perception (situational awareness), decision-making, and communica­ to optimize their paths to minimize energy consumption. Given the
tion/cooperation [123]. These features could be a start in defining a findings that energy efficiency drops with cruise altitude, the goal of
single classification system. There will likely be a transitional period minimizing energy consumption conflicts with other goals of reducing
where the airspace will accept both manned and unmanned aircraft of noise exposure or increasing capacity. A common theme emerges:
different levels of autonomy. To accommodate this traffic, the optimizing for a single factor might provide a sub-optimal system

7
A. Bauranov and J. Rakas Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726

Table 5 4. Review of urban airspace design concepts

Levels of autonomy by Air Force Research Laboratory [123].
LEVEL DESCRIPTION CAPABILITY SEPARATION This section assesses the most important government- and industry-
led urban airspace design initiatives around the world, and then sum­
0 Remotely piloted Altitude sensing. Several miles
vehicle marizes and evaluates the most relevant factors, which are classified into
1 Execute preplanned Flight control and navigation Several miles four groups: safety, social, system, and vehicle factors.
missions sensing. All actions are
preplanned.
4.1. Government-led initiatives
2 Pre-loaded Automatic trajectory Several miles
alternative plans execution. External
commands. 4.1.1. FAA-NASA UAS traffic management (UTM)
3 Limited response to Automatic trajectory Several miles The UAS Traffic Management (UTM) [1,138,139] is a project by
real time events execution. Ability to NASA that aims to enable small, unmanned drones to access low-altitude
compensate for limited
airspace beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) with minimal impact to the
failures.
4 Robust response to Automatic trajectory Hundreds of existing aviation system (Fig. 6). The low-altitude airspace is defined as
anticipated events execution. Ability to yards airspace below 400 ft, where the UTM operations are segregated from
compensate for most failures. other airspace users. The development of UTM is sequenced in four
5 Event adaptive On-board derived vehicle <100 yards
Technical Capability Levels (Table 7), with the simple, remote, and rural
vehicle trajectory. Ability to
compensate for most failures.
operations in the first phase, and dense urban operations in the fourth
Ability to predict onset of phase [139]. In the initial stages, the existing technology and separation
failures. procedures will be used to facilitate operations, while the improvement
6 Real time multi- Detection of other aircraft in <100 yards of technologies such as detect-and-avoid, in-flight separation service,
vehicle coordination local airspace. On-board
and contingency procedures will enable future phases.
collision avoidance.
7 Real time multi- Continuous flight path Not required Although UTM is envisioned as a low-altitude region in uncontrolled
vehicle cooperation evaluation. Trajectory (Class G airspace), NASA does plan to integrate UAS operations in other
optimization. On-board airspace classes [140]. In the controlled airspace, UAS are segregated
collision avoidance. Off-board
from controlled air traffic by creating transition tunnels, or blocks of
data sources for deconfliction
& tracking
airspace reserved for UAS operations. Alternatively, UAS operations can
8 Multi-vehicle mission Detection & tracking of other Not required be integrated into the controlled air traffic flows where they will behave
performance air vehicles within local the same as traditional aviation [140].
optimization airspace. Operation in The operators (drone pilots) are responsible for submitting a flight
controlled airspace without
plan and for maintaining separation from other aircraft. The plan con­
external control. On-board
deconfliction & collision tains information about the airspace volume, times, and locations of the
avoidance. operation. While UTM provides advisories, weather information, and
9 Multi-vehicle tactical Detection & tracking of other Not required other observations, the operator is responsible for the planning and
performance air vehicles within airspace. execution of the safe flight, identification of unexpected operational
optimization Full decision making
capability on-board. Full
conditions, or hazards that may affect their operation. The stage-four
independence. UTM will provide authentication, geofencing, capacity management,
airspace corridors, weather integration, trajectory management, con­
tingency management, and the dynamic adjustments of the system. The
solution. Therefore, the design of airspace structures and routes should FAA will maintain the link between UTM and NAS and create real-time
carefully consider energy consumption in the context of efficiency, but airspace constraints for UAS Operators [140].
also other critical factors, such as safety and community acceptance. The existing technologies used currently for NAS and in the initial
The list of the studies presented in this chapter can be found in phases of UTM for surveillance and navigation are ADS-B and GPS.
Table 6, grouped by the relevant factors. These factors are used to assess Although the initial tests showed that these technologies could be used
the airspace concepts presented in Section 4. for UTM, experiments by NASA show that ADS-B can be used for sur­
veillance only in a limited scope, at very low power, low traffic, and
short distances. At higher traffic densities, the use of ADS-B will
adversely affect manned aviation surveillance [141]. Despite these
limitations, the goal for initial UTM implementation is to minimize
Table 6 development time by utilizing existing technologies [142].
List of relevant studies grouped by the factors that impact airspace design. In the initial phases, UTM will not provide much airspace structure,
Group Factor Studies as aircraft will fly on user-selected pre-approved routes. While the UTM
Safety Object avoidance Separation [32–36,130] project does raise concerns about social factors, the selection of routes is
Sense-and-avoid [39–41] currently not constrained by social factors.
Aircraft avoidance [30,35,43]
Static Geofence [25,34,45,131–135] 4.1.2. FAA urban air mobility (UAM) concept of operations
Dynamic Geofence [25,34,38,132,135]
Wind gusts [51,52,59,60]
The FAA forecasts increased demand for alternative modes of air
Weather [67–70] transportation enabled by the progress in electric aircraft technology
Social Noise [15,74–76,84–86] and vertical take-off and landing capabilities. New vehicles can be
Privacy [25,103,104,137] incorporated into airspace by creating new airspace structures. Fig. 7
Visual pollution [94–97]
illustrates the FAA’s approach to the relationship between UAM, UTM,
System Air Traffic Management [21,106–108]
Communication, Navigation, and Surveillance [109–114] and ATM operations within different airspace classes.
Capacity [1,18,22,117] Under the FAA’s proposal, UAM operations are conducted in UAM
Vehicle Aircraft type [8,118] Corridors without ATC separation services. The corridors are the
Autonomy [119–123] mechanism of separation between UAM and other operations. Within
Energy efficiency [12,127–129]
the corridors, separation is maintained by UAM operators, which in the

8
A. Bauranov and J. Rakas Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726

Fig. 6. NASA’s UTM system would integrate UAS operations in the airspace above buildings and below traditional aviation operations [139].

4.1.3. NASA UAS traffic flow control (UTFC) in urban areas

Table 7
In another concept proposed by NASA [22], the urban airspace is
NASA’s Technical Capability Levels [139].
divided into multiple layers (Fig. 9). Each layer contains an airspace
Technical Capability Levels (TLC) structure located above a street, which creates multi-level networks
TCL 1 TCL 2 TCL 3 TCL 4 between densely located tall buildings (Fig. 10). Three types of airspace
Population Remote Sparse Moderate Dense structures are considered: sky-lane, sky-tube, and sky-corridor. Each
Traffic Low Low Moderate High
structure provides a different number of degrees of freedom. Sky-lanes
density
Application Rural Industrial Suburban Urban are the most restrictive in terms of altitude, heading, speed, and posi­
Other Notification Tracking V2V Large-scale tion, whereas sky-corridor allows the most freedom. The UAS traffic
based procedures communication contingency flow control (UTFC) controls density and throughput, supervises direc­
operation management tional flows of traffic, provides traffic information, identifies unautho­
rized flights, and sends safety advisories.
initial phases of UAM operation, includes pilot on board. Each corridor The structures are designed to assure the level of safety while
will have performance requirements (such as maneuverability or sense- minimizing investments in infrastructure and technology. More struc­
and-avoid capabilities) to ensure more efficient operations. Different ture provides more predictable operations and thus requires less tech­
corridors may have different requirements. Initially, the corridors will nical support. Additionally, with more structure, it is easier to segregate
connect two UAM aerodromes to support point-to-point operations. In aircraft based on their capabilities, which increases safety and reduces
the later stages, the FAA expects the development of more complex and the number of potential conflicts. Finally, more structure provides
efficient networks that move away from point-to-point operations. robustness to system failure and scalability [22].
The FAA posits that corridor design criteria should include 1) Min­ The same study [22] tested different structures, and the results show
imal impact on the existing NAS operations, 2) Public interest consid­ that more structure (sky-lanes) provides a safer and simpler environ­
erations, such as noise, safety, and security, and 3) Customer needs. ment. However, more complexity reduces capacity and increases delays.
Within the corridor, additional structure - “tracks” may exist. The The corridors provide less structure which increases capacity but also
“tracks” enable additional separation of aircraft with different techno­ increases the probability of loss of separation. The comparison of these
logical capabilities (Fig. 8). structures is presented in Table 8.
Centralized air traffic management services provide weather, terrain, In this concept, each vehicle is responsible for maintaining separa­
and obstacle data. UAM operators are also responsible for constantly tion and avoiding collision within the lane or while changing lanes,
monitoring weather and winds prior to and throughout the flight. If the turning, or exiting the lane. The authors do not include considerations
performance of aircraft is inadequate to maintain safety in the forecasted about social factors, or the technologies needed for the concept to work.
weather, the flight should be postponed.
4.1.4. MITRE
MITRE proposed a concept of augmented Visual Flight Rules

9
A. Bauranov and J. Rakas Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726

Fig. 7. UAM, UTM and ATM Operating Environments [1].

Fig. 8. FAA’s UAM Corridors with tracks [1].

operations [143], which enables UAM aircraft to operate in Class G
airspace under the existing Visual Flight Rules by using detect-and-avoid
capabilities. If the aircraft needs to enter controlled airspace, the Dy­
namic Delegated Corridors are created. The Dynamic Corridor allows
UAM aircraft to fly in busy airspace by defining specific tunnels in NAS
and segregating traffic (Fig. 11).
Aircraft will need to be equipped and supported by a wide variety of
decision support tools, as the onboard technology will be responsible for
maintaining separation and conducting avoidance maneuvers. Addi­
tionally, these tools will provide information such as traffic conditions,
corridor position and heading, weather advisories, and airspace flight
rules. The air traffic management system and architecture will be similar
to UTM, with more stringent safety standards.
The priority will be given to aircraft with better technology, such as
advanced detect-and-avoid, noise reduction capabilities, navigation
precision technology, and vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication
technology. More capable aircraft will be able to fly the most efficient
preferred routes. The hope is that under this approach, the operators will
have an incentive to improve capabilities which would increase airspace
capacity and safety. However, the impacts of mixed-equipage operations

10
A. Bauranov and J. Rakas Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726

Fig. 9. NASA UAS traffic flow control: Vertical layers of the airspace in urban areas.

Fig. 10. NASA UAS traffic flow control: Composition of airspace structures: sky-lanes (left) and corridors (right) [22].

implemented. The range of VLOS operations in uncontrolled and

Table 8
controlled airspace will be increased. Operations will be approved
Comparison of airspace structures in UTFC [22].
automatically, and some beyond the visual line of sight (BVLOS) will
Structure Advantage Disadvantage be allowed.
Sky-lane Reduces traffic complexity, Increases delay; Vulnerable to a wind - The third stage introduces operations in high-density and high-
similar to roads on the gust; Requires traffic control signals, complexity areas. Detect-and-avoid, as well as reliable means of
ground. low capacity. communication, will enable an increase of operations in all envi­
Sky-tube Simple, flexible flight. Requires traffic flow control.
Corridor Flexible flight, high Requires rules for separation assurance
ronments. Interactions with ATM/ATC and manned aviation will
capacity. and collision avoidance. become routine. New operations, such as urban air mobility, are
expected to occur.
- The fourth stage fully integrates unmanned with ATM/ATC and
on the system should be carefully investigated and understood. manned aviation by leveraging high levels of automation.

4.1.5. SESAR U-SPACE In addition to stages, airspace is partitioned in X, Y, and Z airspace

U-space is a project initiated by the European Commission to allow
drones to operate in low-level airspace, at an altitude of up to 150 m
[144]. U-space provides a framework to support routine drone opera­
tions and creates rules for interactions with manned aviation. Initially,
flights will be allowed to operate only in small parts of reserved airspace.
However, as technology improves, the operations will spread to other
parts of airspace in four stages:
- The first stage provides basic services such as identity (ID) registra­
tion and static geofencing to identify drones and inform operators
about restricted areas. The majority of operations will happen in low-
density regions. However, some visual line of sight (VLOS) opera­
tions in the urban environment are allowed.
- The second stage connects drones to the ATC and manned aviation.
Where appropriate, the existing infrastructure will be used, but new
technologies, such as 5G, and mix of 5G and ADS-B, will also be
(Fig. 12). Airspace X is low-risk airspace with few basic requirements
from the operator. The pilot remains responsible for collision avoidance,
and only visual-line-of-sight operations are allowed. In Airspace Y, an
approved flight plan is needed, the pilot needs to be trained for Y op­
erations, and BVLOS operations are allowed. Airspace Z also requires a
pre-approved flight plan, provides centralized capacity management
and coordination between aircraft.
Under U-Space rules, social acceptance indicators such as noise,
privacy, and visual impact must be considered. For example, under U-
Space rules, the aircraft will be issued noise certificates that attest
compliance with noise regulation. However, the airspace is not designed
in a way that can address these issues.
4.1.6. DLR U-SPACE
The concept proposed by The German Aerospace Center - Deutsches
Zentrum für Luft-und Raumfahrt (DLR) [146] integrates new airspace

11
A. Bauranov and J. Rakas
Fig. 11. Airspace integration concept by MITRE [143].
users, such as UAS and air taxis into uncontrolled airspace (Class G). The
airspace is segmented into regions (“cells”) for users of similar charac­
teristics. Characteristics such as aircraft level of autonomy and equi­
page, availability of U-space traffic control, and occurrence of
VFR-traffic are considered, and airspace is segmented so that vehicles
of similar characteristics are flying in the same cell. Within a cell, each
aircraft is modeled by an ellipsoid based on its performance parameters,
such as automation, navigation, communication, and surveillance ca­
pabilities (Fig. 13). The lower the capabilities, the larger the safety
ellipsoid around the aircraft. As a result, a cell capacity might be reached
with only a few air vehicles with a large ellipsoid, or by more aircraft
with smaller ellipsoids. Vehicle operators must maintain the separation
between two air vehicles. The air traffic management system creates
geofences, which can be static, such as terrain and ground obstacles and
permanent no-fly zones, or dynamic, such as temporary closure of
airspace due to weather or special event. While the U-Space concept
does not explicitly mention wind gusts, it does leave the possibility to
create a dynamic geofence in the case of severe weather events, such as
heavy winds or rains.
The role of the traffic management system is to segment the airspace,
set up the geofences, and approve flight paths within predefined time
slots in a first-come-first-serve fashion. On the tactical level, ATC mon­
itors position, altitude, and heading of aircraft and sends traffic, geo­
fence, or weather advisories to aircraft. The surveillance is achieved by
ADS-B and through the LTE network. Communication to the aircraft
could be conducted through LTE, Open Glider Network, or very high
frequency (VHF) data link, depending on the aircraft’s capabilities and
equipage. A special segment of airspace is dedicated to VFR flights with
limited communication abilities.
From the user perspective, the advantage of the proposed concept is
that it opens the airspace equally for aircraft with low and high technical
capabilities and provides safety by segregating them. This approach
minimizes complexity, but it also reduces the capacity of overall
airspace since some cells might be underutilized. At low density, air
vehicles have a lot of freedom in terms of route selection, but at high
densities, they are required to follow predefined trajectories. The
12
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726
management system monitors the airspace requirements and the plan­
ned aircraft missions and updates the segments accordingly over time.
The concept of cells does not explicitly consider social factors, such
as noise, or privacy, as social factors do not explicitly constrain the
position or size of the cell. This issue could be solved by creating a
geofence.
4.1.7. METROPOLIS
The authors of the project Metropolis [24,147] proposed four
different types of urban airspace for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)
and personal air vehicles (PAV): full mix, layers, zones, and tubes. The
minimum cruise altitude for all four concepts is 300 ft above ground and
100 ft (UAVs)/500 ft (PAVs) above the highest building. Flying between
buildings is prohibited due to noise and privacy concerns. The maximum
altitude is 6500 ft to prevent mixing with traditional aviation.
Safety is achieved by maintaining minimum separation and equip­
ping aircraft with sense-and-avoid capabilities. The minimum separa­
tion corresponds to a 1-min spacing, which for PAVs equals 250 m.
Vertical separation is proposed to be 50 m. Aircraft are autonomous, and
human pilots may only be needed in emergency situations. Additionally,
aircraft are equipped with ADS-B, which reports location to surrounding
aircraft. The operational factors, such as capacity and efficiency,
depending on the type of airspace, are:
● Full Mix (free flight) – All air vehicles share the airspace and move
without barriers. Air Traffic Control does not require flight plans; it
only manages the capacity of the airspace and sets up the geofences,
while tactical collision avoidance tasks are delegated to each aircraft.
The difficulty in resolving conflicts is the highest in the Full Mix
concept since aircraft have four degrees of freedom: speed, altitude,
and X and Y coordinates. On the other hand, this freedom reduces
distances traveled by aircraft, thus reducing associated trip costs. The
path planning algorithm determines the optimal trajectory and ex­
ecutes it. If a conflict arises, priority is given to the aircraft with
poorer maneuverability, and cruise is prioritized over climb or
descent.
A. Bauranov and J. Rakas Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726

Fig. 12. SESAR’s U-Space airspace concept [145]. X – low risk, Y – medium risk, Z – highest risk.

Fig. 13. DLR’s airspace concept with cells [146]. The lower aircraft performance – the larger the ellipsoid.

● Layers – Airspace is divided into layers where every altitude band
corresponds to a heading range (Fig. 14). Layered airspace aims to
facilitate separation and increase safety. The airspace is portioned
into the feeder layer, UAV layer, and PAV layer. The feeder layer is
the lowest layer, and it is used for climbs and descents. Above it is a
layer reserved for small unmanned drones, followed by a separation
layer and a PAV level layer system (see Fig. 15).
The altitude thresholds will depend on the height of the buildings in
the city. Since PAVs have to accelerate to a certain speed to enter the
PAV layer, take-off procedures will not completely be vertical. These

13
A. Bauranov and J. Rakas Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726

Fig. 14. Flight levels in layered airspace [24].

Fig. 15. Take-off and landing cones for Personal Air Vehicles in layered airspace [24].

“cones” are implemented only to pass the UAV layer system safely. It
represents a protected zone that is prohibited for UAVs. ATC is in charge
of collecting flight plans and creating cones.
● Zones – Airspace is partitioned into zones for different types of ve­
hicles, based on their characteristics, such as speed, maneuverability,
level of autonomy, as well as global directions to aid separation
between vehicles. Two types of structures can be discerned: circular
and radial zones (see Fig. 16). The circular zones are used similarly to
ring roads, while the radial zones serve as connections between
concentric zones. There is no vertical segmentation. Instead, altitude
is selected flexibly, based on the planned flight distance between
origin and destination.
● Tubes provide a fixed route structure presented in Fig. 17. Aircraft
can only follow the tubes and maintain an equal speed as the other
aircraft in the airspace, which offers the advantage of channeling
traffic in a safely separated manner. By creating multiple layers of
tubes, it is possible to segregate aircraft based on their speed,
heading, and size. This increases the throughput and safety of the
system. Short flights utilize a dense grid at the lower levels, while
longer flights benefit from long straight tubes in the upper layers of
the topology, allowing them to travel longer distances at higher
speeds.
The study also created simulations and compared the performance of
different airspace topologies. The summary is presented in Table 9.

14
A. Bauranov and J. Rakas Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726

Fig. 16. Zones: vertical (left) and top-down (right) view [24].

capacity, as more structure reduces capacity.

4.1.8. ONERA’s low-level Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) traffic

Fig. 17. An air vehicle taking-off and climbing to the appropriate tube [24].
Based on the results of the simulations, the study found that Free flight
increases robustness by distributing conflict resolution tasks, increases
flight efficiency with direct routing, and reduces the probability of
conflict. However, there are some concerns over the uncertainties of
aircraft positions and their impact on safety. In terms of the number of
UAV-PAV conflicts, the best performing structure is Layers, while Tubes
yield the highest number and severity of conflicts. The tube creates the
highest delays and the longest flights, concluded that the best structure
in terms of safety versus capacity is the layered airspace [24]. Addi­
tionally, the study concluded that pre-planning and prevention of con­
flict routes are difficult to perform and that at least some airspace
structure is needed to provide separation. A trade-off to structure is
management system (LLRTM)
French research agency ONERA proposed a Low-level Remotely
Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) Traffic Management System (LLRTM)
[148] to monitor piloted drone traffic, manage it in uncontrolled
airspace below 500 ft, coordinate it with ATC in controlled airspace, and
provide ground-based detect-and-avoid functions. The service is based
on the network of ground receivers and onboard ID and tracking devices.
The resulting system performs traffic detection and conflict resolution
[149]. The main goal of LLRTM is to reduce the risk of collision between
two drones, as well as collisions between drones and traditional aircraft.
The airspace is segmented in vertical layers separated by buffer
zones. The heights of layers are defined by the aircraft cylinders. A
cylinder is a 500 feet wide horizontal and 200 feet wide vertical region
around the aircraft used for maintaining separation, as shown in Fig. 18.
All aircraft must have electronic identification and tracking tech­
nology. Although ADS-B is commonly used by commercial aviation, its
operating frequency does not have a sufficient capacity to be used by
drones. Instead, the authors propose FLARM (Flight Alarm) transceivers,
which broadcast the ID, position, altitude, heading, and speed every
second. The next stages of the development of this concept will include
4D trajectories, automation, and the best-equipped/best-served
approach.
4.1.9. Singapore Nanyang Technological University’s UTM concept
The Nanyang Technological University from Singapore proposed a
concept of managing urban air operations [150] by defining two-way
traffic lanes that are horizontally and vertically separated (Fig. 19).
The lanes are placed so that they avoid areas with dense populations to

Table 9
Comparison of airspace structures by ranked characteristics 1-best, 4-worst.
Full Mix Layers Zones Tubes

Safety 2 1 3 4
Third party risk 2 1 3 4
Capacity 1 2 3 4
Efficiency 1 2 3 4
Noise 2 1 4 3

15
A. Bauranov and J. Rakas
Fig. 18. Separation guidance under LLRTM proposal [148].
minimize risk. In the initial phases of the airspace development, the
lanes are positioned above ground infrastructure - railways and roads.
The operations are restricted based on time, such as non-peak hours.
Certain rooftops will be designated for take-off and landing, while the
air in the vicinity of these rooftops is reserved for the climb and descend.
Additionally, airspace is divided into zones, as presented in Fig. 20:
no flying zone (NFZ), business zone (BZ), and residential zone (RZ). The
goal of zones is to create constrained airspace where a single UAS con­
trol station manages flights within the zone. The authors envision travel
and delivery operations from one rooftop within the zone to another
within the same zone. Flying to another zone is possible, but the control
needs to be transferred to another air traffic control, similar to the
airspace-based operations in today’s airspace.
Within a zone, aircraft can also use the predetermined flight tubes to
simplify the complexity of managing the traffic and create a more pre­
dictable environment. Every aircraft is equipped with advanced detect-
and-avoid technology. The technological requirements for aircraft in
this airspace include detect-and-avoid capabilities, vehicle-to-vehicle
and vehicle-to-ground communication links, GPS localization, and
remote piloting.
The authors argue that social factors, such as privacy, should not be
Fig. 19. Horizontally and vertically separated flight lanes in Singapore [150].
16
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726
limiting factors, but should be included in the broader assessment of
costs and benefits of the technology. If the benefits of the technology
outweigh the privacy and noise concerns, the operations should be
allowed [150].
4.1.10. China’s civil UAS Aviation Operation Management System
(UOMS)
UAS Aviation Operation Management System (UOMS) [151] is an air
traffic management system that enables drone operations in low-level
airspace. UOMS provides static geofencing, dynamic geofencing, flight
plan approval, traffic capacity and flow management, and flight sur­
veillance and warning system. UOMS segregates aircraft into different
flight levels based on their characteristics (Fig. 21).
In China, general aviation has its own management system, called
General Aviation Flight Service (GAFS). It is intended that both UOMS
and GAFS operate in the same area. UAS flights and general aviation are
not segregated, and UOMS and GAFS share all information.
All drones in UOMS airspace are connected to the cellular network.
Tests on communication networks show that the 4G network provides
coverage below 300 m, and 5G network can support flights up to heights
of 1000 m. The precision of location reporting is enhanced by using
communication networks since GPS has reliability issues [151].
4.1.11. JAXA UAS traffic management
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) proposed a concept of
the UAS traffic management (UTM) system for traffic management of
UAS operations [152]. UTM collects flight plans of all manned and un­
manned flights, sets geofences, and provides information on traffic,
weather, and geofenced areas. Individual traffic management service
providers coordinate with central airspace management service, coor­
dinate with it, and ensure the safety of operations by separating drones
in their control from drones of other providers (Fig. 22).
The development of UTM is sequenced in four stages, starting from
the remotely piloted VLOS operations in the first stage, to the automated
BVLOS operations in urban areas. In-flight traffic management functions
are transmitted using a mobile communication network (LTE) over the
air [153].
4.2. Industry-led initiatives
4.2.1. Amazon
In a proposal by Amazon [154] airspace below 500 feet is segregated
into layers (Fig. 23). Four layers are suggested:
● Low-Speed, Localized Traffic - area below 200 feet is reserved for
applications such as recreation, surveying, inspection, surveillance,
A. Bauranov and J. Rakas
Fig. 20. Airspace in Singapore [150].
Fig. 21. UOMS in China [151].
and videography, as well as low-tech aircraft without detect-and-
avoid technology.
● High-speed transit - includes levels between 200 and 400 feet, and is
reserved for well-equipped autonomous aircraft vehicles that operate
beyond the line of sight. Technological capabilities required for this
layer include detect-and-avoid capabilities, vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V)
communication, and collision avoidance.
● No Fly Zone - is the area between 400 and 500 feet, and,
● Predefined Low-Risk Locations - area established by aviation
authorities.
The vehicle would be able to access different layers of airspace based
on equipage and capabilities. Operators with a lesser-equipped vehicle
may fly safely in a remote area. However, the only aircraft with so­
phisticated technology will be able to operate in an urban or dense
environment. The equipage levels and access are presented in Table 10.
A central management entity controls off-line coordination and
performs auditing; however, the majority of traffic management is
17
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726
performed by operators in a federated fashion. Those operators would
coordinate by following established protocols, using vehicle-to-vehicle,
vehicle-to-operator, and operator-to-operator communication. This
approach will entail a distributed network comprised of local/regional
air operations centers and remote vehicle operators. This new system is
essential given the highly automated nature of future UAS.
Highly equipped UAS will be capable of navigation, merging and
sequencing, communication, maintaining safe self-separation, collision
avoidance, and deconfliction in congested airspace without operator
assistance. Collision avoidance must be achieved with both collabora­
tive and non-collaborative objects. Collaborative detect-and-avoid
collision avoidance is enabled by vehicle-to-vehicle communication.
On the other hand, non-collaborative collision avoidance is enabled by
sensors, which recognize non-collaborative entities such as manned
aircraft, birds, and balloons.
4.2.2. Airbus
Airbus proposed four concepts (Fig. 24) of designing airspace: Basic
A. Bauranov and J. Rakas Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726

Fig. 22. Japanese UTM [152].

Fig. 23. Urban airspace concept by Amazon [154].

Flight, Free Routes, Corridors, and Fixed Routes [156]. In Basic Flight,
both manned and unmanned aircraft are responsible for self-separation
and must maintain it at all times. If all aircraft select a direct route
without coordination, the safety decreases as the number of conflicts
increases. In the Free Route, aircraft can fly any path as long as the path
is pre-approved, deconflicted from other routes, and approved by a
traffic manager. This approach provides flexibility while maintaining an
acceptable level of safety. The trajectories are less-than-optimal since
the flight plan can be rejected. Corridors are predefined volumes in
space, used in high-demand situations. This concept is similar to the
waypoint procedures used in traditional aviation. Fixed Routes are used
to ensure safety when there is a mix of aircraft capabilities and high
traffic density. These routes are constructed and modified dynamically
based on risk, traffic, and weather.
Airbus proposes new flight rules that would accommodate un­
manned operations. For example, Basic Flight Rules (BFR) would cover

18
A. Bauranov and J. Rakas Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726

Table 10 about conditions in the airspace, regulation, and nearby traffic.

Equipage and airspace access under best-equipped, best-served model proposed Managed aircraft use this information as input for tactical self-
by Amazon [155]. separation and collision avoidance.
Class Equipage Airspace Access Aircraft will also need to meet navigation performance standards.
Basic Radio Control Line of sight flight in
Navigation may be assisted by GPS, ground-based beacons, or other
predefined low-risk locations. technology (see Table 11). Aircraft may need to maintain precise navi­
Good Transmission of ID and location via V2V, Operations below 200 feet in gation in areas like urban canyons, where multipath effects degrade
ability to receive air traffic and weather rural areas. traditional navigation accuracy. With traffic management services
data, internet connection via ground
maintaining separation for managed drones, detect and avoid is a
infrastructure, GPS and Wifi capabilities,
geospatial data. backup. Simulations show that it works well in low-density regions,
Better Avoidance based on collaborative V2V, Operations below 200 feet in while strategic and tactical management works better at higher
onboard internet connection, ADS-B Out. suburban operating areas. densities.
Best Non-collaborative detect-and-avoid, BVLOS operations below 400
onboard internet connection, ADS-B In/ feet in all areas, in all
Out, 4D trajectory planning and conditions.
4.2.3. Boeing
management, alternate landing Boeing proposed a concept of free-flight, performance-based routes
execution. for low altitude trajectory operations [157]. These routes would be
managed by a 4D trajectory-based separation management system that
would maintain safety, including during approach and departure for
manned flights that operate independently. They would be responsible
operations around hubs and terminal locations.
for maintaining separation, routing, and safety. On the other hand,
The technological requirements include onboard algorithms for real-
Managed Flight Rules (MFR) would cover operations that coordinate
time flight planning and in dense traffic environments. Traffic, weather,
their path with a traffic management system and follow its separation
and other operational restrictions will be shared in real-time, and the
guidance.
aircraft will dynamically adjust its flight plan and route. Advanced
Real-time two-way communications report position and status so
detect-and-avoid systems will provide safety assurance and collision
that traffic managers can coordinate with their aircraft. Around airports,
avoidance during the flight.
ATM and UTM services work together. For example, they coordinate the
direction of local traffic flows between fixed-wing aircraft and un­
4.2.4. Embraer-X
manned drones at local airports based on weather conditions. Traffic
Embraer-X proposed a concept called Urban Air Traffic Management
management services provide basic information to pilots and autopilots
(UATM) [158]. The UATM airspace is positioned between lower-level

Fig. 24. Airspace structures by Airbus (left to right): Basic Flight, Free Route, Corridors, and Fixed Route [156].

19
A. Bauranov and J. Rakas Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726

Table 11
Services offered based on the level of automation in Airbus proposal.
Automation Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Operations VLOS Autonomous BVLOS in low- Integration of BVLOS in Fleet operations On-demand autonomous
density airspace controlled airspace operations in high-density airspace
Airspace VFR corridors, altitude UAS tracking, automated Unmanned procedures, High-density Dynamic and performance-based
restrictions, automated approvals corridor configurations controlled airspace rules for access to airspace
geofencing
Services SWIM Network manager ATM-UTM coordination, Specialized traffic ATM integration, congestion
System-Wide Information digital traffic manager management avoidance
Management

airspace reserved for small UAS (sUAS) operations, and traditional ATM
airspace (Fig. 25). Within the UATM airspace, the aircraft use routes and
corridors. Routes are linear trajectories defined by waypoints that
accommodate a single vehicle, while corridors accommodate multiple
vehicles. Given the complex mix of aircraft capabilities, routes and
corridors are critical for managing traffic efficiently. Different rules
apply to different structures and access to some corridors or routes may
be restricted. The combination of layers and structures provides access
to aircraft of different capability levels while maintaining safety.
The operator files a flight plan to the central traffic management
authority that authorizes the 4-D trajectory and ensures it is decon­
flicted, and that the requested routes, corridors, and airspace will be
available at the designated time slot. The traffic management system
dynamically manages routes, corridors, and geofences based on traffic,
weather conditions, emergencies, or other restrictions. Additionally, the
system ensures that flights conform to the flight authorizations and
assigned routes.
To develop UATM, Embraer-X relies on the development of new
technologies. For example, the report indicates that the foundation for
surveillance will be GPS supported by a new technology that would
serve as a redundancy in case of a GPS failure. However, as shown by
NASA, GPS failure is not as big of a problem as GPS accuracy, which can
be off by as much as 5 m [136]. Additionally, tracking will also depend
on ADS-B-like devices that will have its benefits, and communication
will be conducted on the 5G LTE network.
The report indicates that the positioning of routes and the design
process must consider communities that will be affected by the negative
externalities of air traffic. Well-designed airspace structures will reduce
risks, maintain efficient traffic flow, and ensure community acceptance
when traffic reaches high volumes, which is the reason why all stake­
holders should be included in the design process as soon as possible
[158].
4.2.5. Uber elevate
Uber took a more modest approach of integrating its on-demand
VTOL operations into the existing framework of air traffic manage­
ment. They don’t directly specify airspace structure but listed the rec­
ommendations for the successful operations of their on-demand VTOLs
[15]. Although Uber’s proposal relies on the existing technologies and
NASA UTM proposal, it does present a discussion about the principles of
designing urban airspace, especially in terms of social acceptance, which
is not odd given that Uber’s success relies on the positive acceptance of
its users.
The proposed safety level is twice that of driving a car based on the
number of fatalities per passenger-mile. Using Part 135 operations as a
proxy, Uber argues that the current safety level in air-taxi aviation is
worse than driving (about 0.15 deaths per 100 million passenger miles).
In the initial phases, the existing technologies such as ADS-B and
radio-based voice communication will be used for operations of VTOLs
with a human pilot onboard. However, to achieve a higher density of

Fig. 25. UATM concept by Embraer-X [158].

20
A. Bauranov and J. Rakas Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726

operations, new technologies, specifically developed for low-level

airspace, will need to be developed. The whitepaper calls for the

LTE, FLARM,
Not required
Metropolis-d

Netherlands
extension of NASA’s UTM above 500 feet to accommodate intended

Centralized
VTOL operations and create seamless integration with airports and

Various
ADS-B
Tubes

Static

Low
terminal areas. Additional technologies needed are 1) digital air traffic

✔
✔
x

x
x
x

x
control communication, 2) a UTM system expanded to higher altitudes
that can manage a mix of VTOLs and General Aviation aircraft, and 3)

LTE, FLARM,
Not required
Metropolis-c
traffic management system that can integrate VTOLs and airline ap­

Netherlands

Centralized
proaches and departures near airports.

Medium

Various
ADS-B
Zones

Static
Uber argues that stringent standards for reducing noise should be

✔
✔
adopted, including noise objectives for vehicles, long-term and short-

x
x
x

x
term annoyance. Using these metrics, and real-time tracking of site

LTE, FLARM,
noise as inputs, the minimum-noise flight path should be selected.

Not required
Metropolis-b

Netherlands

Centralized

Various
Layers

ADS-B
Static
4.3. Assessment of urban airspace concepts

High
✔

✔
✔
x

x
x
x

x
The summary of the proposed concepts is presented in Table 12 and
Table 13. Each concept is evaluated according to the dimensions pre­

LTE, FLARM,
Metropolis-a

Netherlands

Centralized
sented in Section 3: safety, social, system, and vehicle factors. Most

Required
Full mix

Various
ADS-B
concepts focused on the limited notion of safety, which includes

Static

High
avoidance of physical objects, but less on safety impacts of weather or

✔
✔

✔
x

x
x
x
wind. The most frequent, sometimes unstated assumption is that the
technology required to support UAM operations exists and is ready for

LTE, FLARM,
Not required

Centralized
implementation. However, technologies such as detect-and-avoid,

Germany

Dynamic
U-Space

Various
advanced communication, navigation, and surveillance are still inade­

ADS-B
High
Cells
DLR
quate to facilitate safe operations.

✔
✔

✔
✔
x
x
x

x
Social factors are largely ignored, which is not uncommon in the
initial phases of developing new engineering solutions. While the
SESAR U-Space

abstraction of the physical nature of a city into a mathematical network

LTE, FLARM,
Not required
Preapproved
Trajectories

Centralized
is a useful tool for the ideation of possible solutions, the customer (i.e.,

Various
the public) should be introduced into the process sooner rather than

ADS-B
Static

High
EU

later.
✔

✔
✔

✔
x

x
x
x
It is noticeable that private companies are promoting airspace con­
cepts that do not require centralized air traffic control or management
system. While this approach might seem quicker, it increases

Not specified
Preapproved
Trajectories

Centralized
complexity, which might ultimately reduce the trust and safety of air Required

Various
MITRE

mobility. Static

High
USA

Overall, the proposed concepts can roughly be divided into three

✔

✔
✔

✔
x

x
x
x
groups. The first group includes the most realistic proposals that rely on
NASA UTFC

Centralized
the existing technologies, and that could be implemented today. These
Required

specified
Skylanes

are the proposals by NASA, FAA, SESAR U-Space and to a measure, DLR
Static

sUAS
USA

Low
U-Space. Under these proposals, drones fly in G Class airspace, below the
Not
✔

✔
x
x
x
x
x

x
altitude of 400 ft and leverage the existing air traffic management sys­
tem, which provides identity registration, as well as weather and
obstacle (geofence) data. The pilots are required to fly the drones in the
Not required
Preapproved
Trajectories

GPS, ADS-B
NASA UTM

Centralized

line of sight and maintain separation from the other traffic according to
the existing airspace rules. The operations are kept separate from the
Static

sUAS
High
USA

controlled airspace. If there is a need to go through controlled airspace,

✔

✔
x

x
x
x

UAV operator can use segregated corridors with the permission of air
traffic control. Although future phases require more advanced technol­
Not required

Centralized
FAA UAM

Corridors

ogies, the first phase could be implemented today.

specified
Medium

Various
Static

The second group of airspace concepts proposes dedicated UAM

v1.0

USA

Not
✔

✔
✔
✔

traffic control and the creation of airspace structures, such as layers,

x
x

tubes, lanes, etc. This group includes the majority of proposals,

including UTFC, MITRE, METROPOLIS, ONERA, Singapore UTM,
Unmanned
Separation
Sense and
Geofence

Geofence
Dynamic

Airbus, and Embraer-X. To properly function, these concepts require

Manned
Static

avoid

improvement of several technologies, most importantly, improvement

Airspace Management

Energy-efficient paths

in high-capacity communication networks, and improvement in the

Review of airspace concepts.

Visual pollution

precision of surveillance systems which would enable remote path

Critical aircraft

planning and conflict resolution. These concepts propose static separa­

Automation
Wind gusts
avoidance

Capacity
Weather

tion requirements and may or may not be complemented by advanced

Privacy
Object

Noise
Country/Region

sense and avoid systems.

CNS

The third group of concepts, such as those from Amazon and Boeing,
Structure

rely on the development of technologies that would enable UAVs to be

Table 12

Concept

Vehicle
System
Safety

Social

highly independent of any air traffic control. The vehicles are expected
to carry high-quality cameras, LIDAR, and some version of RADAR, and

21
A. Bauranov and J. Rakas Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726

have the potential to collect, process, and transmit large volumes of

data. The UAVs will have the capability to sustain this heavy payload

Next generation
while not jeopardizing endurance and range, which implies improve­

Decentralized
Not Required

Not specified
Uber Elevate

Preapproved

technologies
ment in battery technology. The concepts rely on advanced sense-and-
Trajectories avoid systems.

VTOL
Static
USA

✔
✔
✔
✔
✔

✔
✔

x
5. Discussion
Layers with routes

The first step in the process of designing airspace is to determine its

Next generation
GPS and ADS-B
and corridors

structure. Air vehicles in less structured airspace have more degrees of

Centralized
Embraer-X

Required

freedom and can freely choose their position, altitude, heading, and

Various
Static
speed, which allows them to fly cost-effective routes. However, these

High
USA

✔
✔
✔
✔

✔
concepts, although least prohibitive, require high technological capa­
x

x
bilities, including advanced detect-and-avoid systems, vehicle-to-
vehicle communication, and more advanced ADS-B and GPS services.

ADS-B, Internet,
Boeing/Aurora

Decentralized On the other side of the spectrum (Fig. 26), concepts with the most

Blockchain
structure can accommodate various levels of equipage but require strict
Required

Dynamic

Medium

Various
Tubes

rules and route following to ensure safety.

USA

Less structured airspace has been shown to allow for higher traffic
✔

✔
x

x
densities by reducing traffic flow constraints and structure. Here,
Basic flight, Free routes,

aircraft can fly user-preferred (often direct) routes, while separation

Corridors, Fixed routes

responsibility is delegated to individual aircraft using onboard conflict

ADS-B, V2V Comm

resolution technologies [24,157]. Energy consumption is lower due to

Not required

more efficient routes. However, free flight is possible only if vehicles are
Centralized

autonomous, and the concept is not inclusive of aircraft with lesser

Various
Airbus

Varies
Static

technological capabilities. Free flight concepts usually do not consider

EU

✔
✔

✔
x

social factors in selecting their routes, as this would require higher levels
of coordination and structure. The collision risk is high since the
Decentralized
WiFi, ADS-B,

detect-and-avoid system is the only barrier that prevents an accident,

and flights can have multiple collision points along their trajectories.
Required

Dynamic

Medium
Amazon

Various
Layers

Third-party risk is also high since user-selected routes might be located

USA

V2V
✔

above high-density neighborhoods. These findings are supported by the

x

x
x
x
x
x

Metropolis study (Table 9) and the Altiscope study that showed that
Precision mapping,

increasing disorder in airspace leads to lower safety levels [159]. The

concept of free flight is popular as it does not require a centralized traffic
RADAR, GPS
Centralized

management system; it is achievable solely by developing higher-level

Corridors

Required

Various

autonomy. However, it can only be implemented in limited, con­

Japan

Static
JAXA

High

strained geographic areas where there is little chance of contact with

✔

✔
x

x
x
x
x
x

other aircraft or objects. The performance of these different factors for

Decentralized

free flight, as well as for the other more complex structures, is qualita­
Not required

4G/5G LTE

tively presented in Fig. 27.

Various
Layers
UOMS

China

Other concepts aim at changing the airspace structure specifically for

Static

High
✔

✔
✔

integrating small UAS, for example, by introducing specialized UAS

x

x
x
x

traffic management (UTM). One step further is to segregate aircraft of

Decentralized

different capabilities into different layers. The study [160] has shown
Singapore

Singapore

GPS, V2V

that layers reduce the probability of a collision in three ways: by creating

Required

Comm

vertical separation between operations, by segregating flights according

Lanes

Static

UAS
Low

to the direction and speed, which reduces the number of conflict points,
✔

✔
x

x
x
x
x

and by separating according to the aircraft capabilities. The concept of

layers also performs well in terms of capacity [160], third-party risk
FLARM, LTE,
Not required

Centralized

[147], and inclusivity [156].

Medium

Various
ONERA

France

Layers

ADS-B

Some structures can be beneficial in terms of traffic separation, but

Static

too much structure only reduces performance. As flight paths become

✔

✔
✔
x

x
x
x
x
x

constrained, capacity, efficiency, and safety decrease. Since multiple

Review of airspace concepts (continued).

aircraft are guided to the pre-set waypoints or structures, the number of

Unmanned
Separation
Sense and
Geofence

Geofence

potential conflicts increases, compared even with free flight [147].

Dynamic

Manned
Static

avoid

Highly structured airspace has an advantage in that it can accept aircraft

Airspace Management

Energy-efficient paths

of different technological capabilities, i.e., it is inclusive.

Visual pollution

The structure comes from the need to separate operations without

Critical aircraft

imposing too many technological requirements. Rotorcraft wake vortex

Automation
Wind gusts
avoidance

Capacity
Weather

propagates downward and does not create the same issues as wake
Privacy
Object

Noise
Country/Region

vortices in traditional aviation [22]. Therefore, the horizontal separa­

CNS

tion for rotary-wing UASs is only influenced by the need to avoid con­
Structure

flict, which means that the separation standards mainly depend on a

Table 13

Concept

Vehicle
System
Safety

Social

vehicle’s speed, maneuverability, sensor system technology, and

autonomous decision-making capability.

22
A. Bauranov and J. Rakas
Fig. 26. Airspace structure and design concepts.
Fig. 27. Performance vs. Airspace structure.
The technology required to provide such capabilities is still not so­
phisticated enough. For example, although advances in detect-and-
avoid systems have been made, it cannot be relied upon for safety
assurance [161]. The GPS can provide accuracy up to 5 m, which is not
adequate for high-precision navigation in unstructured airspace [111].
ADS-B, required for tracking and surveillance, lacks frequency band­
width to support high-density UAM traffic [115] and should be replaced
with more advanced surveillance systems [116]. For these reasons, it is
reasonable to predict that in the short- and mid-term, more segregated
airspace will be developed.
Finally, the collection of these concepts shows that social factors
usually come as an afterthought, which is a mistake since noise is one of
the most severe capacity-limiting factors [162]. The focus of the
research efforts presented in this article is placed on the trade-off be­
tween safety and capacity. However, the assumptions for these concepts
are based on an abstract network, with a particular emphasis on effi­
ciency over other outcomes. Idealized networks usually ignore risks such
as bird strikes and realities on the ground.
Urban air mobility, as a new mode of transportation, is there to serve
the public. But currently, there is a little public debate over what UAM
should look like, and the average city resident seems to be unfamiliar
with the concept of UAM. Urban air has been seen as a common good,
with a little contestation over rights to it. However, as the privatization
of the air proceeds, it is naïve to expect that it will simply be appro­
priated by the aviation industry without pushback from state and local
legislatures, private citizens, communities, and other interests. Tradi­
tionally, areas around airports were the only areas affected, and the
wider population had no contact with air traffic operations, mainly
23
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726
because air transportation networks do not have physical manifestation
on the ground. Aviation and the cities were able to coexist without much
contact. However, urban aviation is manifesting itself on the ground, by
physically changing the built environment and altering the living
environment, which impacts the interests of communities, real-estate
developers, politicians, citizens, and interest groups.
Even a policy taken for granted by researchers, such as drone iden­
tification, poses challenges when implemented in the real world. Remote
Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Rule [163] is a proposed
rule that would require all drones to have remote identification capa­
bilities. However, the proposal has faced an uproar by the hobby model
aviation community, claiming that the new rules would effectively wipe
out the community and the supporting $1 billion industry. A simple
piece of legislation is facing serious opposition. The issues such as air
rights, land appropriation, land use, and zoning will be much harder to
solve.
The UAM is in the “honeymoon” phase, similar to where autonomous
vehicles were in the early 2010s. New aircraft prototypes are here, and
the industry is enthusiastic. However, there is still a long way to go in
terms of technology, regulation, and public conversation. The ramifi­
cations of rolling out too quickly, especially in passenger transportation,
are severe. By rushing to start UAM passenger transport, the unexpected
safety issues and public opposition might stop the UAM development
and force cities to ban UAM. Traditional aviation has been dealing with
public opposition for over five decades, mainly due to aircraft noise
imposed on communities near airports. However, most commercial
airports are currently located in the suburbs, whereas vertiports will
mostly be located in more densely populated areas. Since commercial
A. Bauranov and J. Rakas
airports developed mechanisms for dealing with public concerns in
suburban environments, these same mechanisms may not fully apply to
vertiport and city environments.
The aviation agencies around the world will likely have more diffi­
culties in enacting their solutions in the space where there are so many
stakeholders and will need to reach out to a wider audience than today.
6. Conclusion
This study presents a review of urban airspace design concepts and
creates a framework that can be used to assess the proposed concepts.
We define four groups of factors that impact the physical structure of
airspace: safety, social, system, and vehicle factors and then analyze
airspace proposals based on these factors. The analysis shows that most
proposals 1) focus on the limited notion of safety, 2) rely on technologies
that are still not available, and 3) do not address social factors
adequately.
Additionally, we find that the structure and restrictiveness of
airspace can influence capacity, safety, and efficiency. Less structured
airspace, such as the concept of Free flight, allows greater capacity and
route efficiency but requires greater technological capabilities and re­
duces safety. On the other hand, more restrictive structures, such as
tubes and lanes, enable the operations of less-equipped aircraft but in­
crease delays.
Recommendations for further research on the topic of urban airspace
include:
- Research of risk, including accident scenario planning, bird strike
risk, loss of control, and risk due to wind gusts.
- Research and discussion about data usage, rights, anonymization,
and de-identification of data collected by aircraft in the urban
environment.
- Research on new technologies, especially ADS-B, detect-and-avoid,
technology for taking over control if the geofence is breached, and a
safety protocol under which new tech can be inspected.
- Research into psychoacoustic effects of drone noise on humans and
airspace concept development that has noise at the core of its design.
- Research of community input and design, including visual pollution
and privacy concerns.
- Research on the impact of ground infrastructure on urban planning,
including landing and take-off sites, real estate, zoning, planning
issues, inequalities, and air rights.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] FAA, Urban Air Mobility (UAM), Concept of Operations. V1.0, US Department of
Transportation. Office of NextGen, 2020.
[2] T. Prevot, J. Rios, P. Kopardekar, J.E. Robinson III, M. Johnson, J. Jung, UAS
traffic management (UTM) concept of operations to safely enable low altitude
flight operations, in: 16th AIAA Aviat. Technol. Integr. Oper. Conf, 2016,
pp. 1–16, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2016-3292.
[3] Z. Liu, Z. Li, B. Liu, X. Fu, I. Raptis, K. Ren, Rise of mini-drones: applications and
issues, in: Proceedings of the 2015 Workshop on Privacy-Aware Mobile
Computing, 2015, pp. 7–12, https://doi.org/10.1145/2757302.2757303.
[4] C. Sutheerakul, N. Kronprasert, M. Kaewmoracharoen, P. Pichayapan,
Application of unmanned aerial vehicles to pedestrian traffic monitoring and
management for shopping streets, Transp. Res. Procedia (2017), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.131.
[5] A. Restas, Drone applications for supporting disaster management, World J. Eng.
Technol. (2015), https://doi.org/10.4236/wjet.2015.33c047.
[6] H. Cruz, M. Eckert, J. Meneses, J.F. Martínez, Efficient Forest Fire Detection Index
for Application in Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs), Sensors (Switzerland),
2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/s16060893.
24
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726
[7] J.A. Besada, L. Bergesio, I. Campaña, D. Vaquero-Melchor, J. López-Araquistain,
A.M. Bernardos, J.R. Casar, Drone mission definition and implementation for
automated infrastructure inspection using airborne sensors, Sensors (2018),
https://doi.org/10.3390/s18041170.
[8] M. Hassanalian, A. Abdelkefi, Classifications, applications, and design challenges
of drones: a review, Prog. Aero. Sci. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paerosci.2017.04.003.
[9] C. Torresan, A. Berton, F. Carotenuto, S.F. Di Gennaro, B. Gioli, A. Matese,
F. Miglietta, C. Vagnoli, A. Zaldei, L. Wallace, Forestry applications of UAVs in
Europe: a review, Int. J. Rem. Sens. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1080/
01431161.2016.1252477.
[10] G.J. Grenzdörffer, A. Engel, B. Teichert, The photogrammetric potential of low-
cost UAVs in forestry and agriculture, in: Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens.
Spat. Inf. Sci vol. XXXVII, 2008, https://doi.org/10.2747/1548-1603.41.4.287.
[11] M.J. Duffy, S.R. Wakayama, R. Hupp, A study in reducing the cost of vertical
flight with electric propulsion, in: 17th AIAA aviat, Technol. Integr. Oper. Conf.
(2017), https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2017-3442.
[12] P. Pradeep, P. Wei, Energy efficient arrival with RTA constraint for urban eVTOL
operations, 2018 AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet. (2018) 1–13, https://doi.org/10.2514/
6.2018-2008.
[13] W.J. Fredericks, M.D. Moore, R.C. Busan, Benefits of hybrid-electric propulsion to
achieve 4x increase in cruise efficiency for a VTOL UAV, 2013 int, in: Powered
Lift Conf., 2013, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2013-4324.
[14] J.D. Sinsay, B. Tracey, J.J. Alonso, D.A. Kontinos, J.E. Melton, S. Grabbe, Air
vehicle design and technology considerations for an electric VTOL metro-regional
public transportation system, 12th AIAA aviat, Technol. Integr. Oper. Conf.
(2012), https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2012-5404.
[15] J. Holden, N. Goel, Fast-Forwarding to a Future of On-Demand Urban Air
Transportation, VertiFlite, 2016, pp. 1–98.
[16] T. Prevot, J. Homola, J. Mercer, From rural to urban environments: human/
systems simulation research for low altitude UAS traffic management (UTM),
16th AIAA aviat, Technol. Integr. Oper. Conf. (2016) 1–12, https://doi.org/
10.2514/6.2016-3291.
[17] P.D. Vascik, R. John Hansman, Constraint identification in on demand mobility
for aviation through an exploratory case study of Los Angeles, in: 17th AIAA
Aviat, Technol. Integr. Oper. Conf. (2017), https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2017-
3083.
[18] P.D. Vascik, H. Balakrishnan, R.J. Hansman, Assessment of air traffic control for
urban air mobility and unmanned systems, in: 8th Int. Conf. Res. Air Transp.,
2018.
[19] ICAO Annex 11 - Air Traffic Services, International Standards, Annex 11 to the
Convention on International Civil Aviation, fifteenth ed., 2018. Montréal,
Canada.
[20] FAA, Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, FAA-H-8083-25B, Chapter
15: Airspace, Washington DC, 2016.
[21] D.P. Thipphavong, R.D. Apaza, B.E. Barmore, V. Battiste, C.M. Belcastro, B.
K. Burian, Q.V. Dao, M.S. Feary, S. Go, K.H. Goodrich, J.R. Homola, H.R. Idris, P.
H. Kopardekar, J.B. Lachter, N.A. Neogi, H.K. Ng, R.M. Oseguera-Lohr, M.
D. Patterson, S.A. Verma, Urban air mobility airspace integration concepts and
considerations, in: 2018 Aviat. Technol. Integr. Oper. Conf., 2018, https://doi.
org/10.2514/6.2018-3676.
[22] D.-S. Jang, C.A. Ippolito, S. Sankararaman, V. Stepanyan, Concepts of airspace
structures and system Analysis for UAS traffic flows for urban areas, AIAA Inf.
Syst. Infotech @ Aerosp. (2017), https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2017-0449.
[23] B. Sridhar, K.S. Sheth, S. Grabbe, Airspace complexity and its application in air
traffic management, in: 2nd USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar,
1998, pp. 1–6.
[24] E. Sunil, J. Hoekstra, J. Ellerbroek, F. Bussink, D. Nieuwenhuisen,
A. Vidosavljevic, S. Kern, Metropolis : relating airspace structure and capacity for
extreme traffic densities, 11th USA/europe air traffic manag, Res. Dev. Semin.
(2015).
[25] J. Cho, Y. Yoon, How to assess the capacity of urban airspace: a topological
approach using keep-in and keep-out geofence, Transport. Res. C Emerg. Technol.
(2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.05.001.
[26] K.H. Low, Framework for urban traffic management of unmanned aircraft system
(uTM-UAS), in: ICAO’s Unmanned Aircr. Syst. Ind. Symp., 2017. Montréal,
Canada.
[27] R. Beard, T. McLain, Multiple UAV cooperative search under collision avoidance
and limited range communication constraints, IEEE Conf. Decis. Control (2003).
[28] X. Wang, V. Yadav, S.N. Balakrishnan, Cooperative UAV formation flying with
obstacle/collision avoidance, IEEE Trans. Contr. Syst. Technol. (2007), https://
doi.org/10.1109/TCST.2007.899191.
[29] C. Goerzen, Z. Kong, B. Mettler, A survey of motion planning algorithms from the
perspective of autonomous UAV guidance, J. Intell. Robot. Syst. Theory Appl.
(2010), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-009-9383-1.
[30] A. Bauranov, J. Rakas, Urban air mobility and manned eVTOLs: safety
implications, in: 2019 IEEE/AIAA 38th Digital Avionics Systems Conference
(DASC), IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1109/
DASC43569.2019.9081685.
[31] FAA, Order JO 7110.123, Wake Turbulence Recategorization - Phase II,
Washington DC, 2016.
[32] C. Bosson, T. Lauderdale, Simulation evaluations of an autonomous urban air
mobility network management and separation service, in: 2018 Aviation
Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, 2018, p. 3365.
[33] M. Wu, A. Cone, S. Lee, C. Chen, M. Edwards, D. Jack, Well clear trade study for
unmanned aircraft system detect and avoid with non-cooperative aircraft, in:
A. Bauranov and J. Rakas
2018 Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, 2018,
p. 2876.
[34] J. Tadema, E. Theunissen, K.M. Kirk, Self separation support for UAS, in: AIAA
Infotech Aerosp. 2010, 2010, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2010-3460.
[35] D. Geister, B. Korn, Density based management concept for urban air traffic, in:
2018 IEEE/AIAA 37th Digit. Avion. Syst. Conf., IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–9.
[36] Y. Lin, S. Saripalli, Sampling-based path planning for UAV collision avoidance,
IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport. Syst. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1109/
TITS.2017.2673778.
[37] M. Mullins, M. Holman, K. Foerster, N. Kaabouch, W. Semke, Dynamic separation
thresholds for a small airborne sense and avoid system, in: AIAA Infotech@
Aerosp. Conf., 2013, p. 5148.
[38] S. Hrabar, 3D path planning and stereo-based obstacle avoidance for rotorcraft
UAVs, in: 2008 IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst. IROS, 2008, https://doi.
org/10.1109/IROS.2008.4650775.
[39] D. Bratanov, L. Mejias, J. Ford, A vision-based sense-and-avoid system tested on a
ScanEagle UAV, in: 2017 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft
Systems (ICUAS), IEEE, 2017, pp. 1134–1142.
[40] S. Ramasamy, R. Sabatini, A. Gardi, Avionics sensor fusion for small size
unmanned aircraft Sense-and-Avoid, in: 2014 IEEE Int. Work. Metrol. Aerospace,
Metroaerosp. 2014 - Proc., 2014, https://doi.org/10.1109/
MetroAeroSpace.2014.6865933.
[41] X. Yu, Y. Zhang, Sense and avoid technologies with applications to unmanned
aircraft systems: review and prospects, Prog. Aero. Sci. (2015), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.paerosci.2015.01.001.
[42] K.D. Davis, S.P. Cook, Achieving sense and avoid for unmanned aircraft systems:
assessing the gaps for science and research, in: Handb. Unmanned Aer. Veh.,
2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9707-1_78.
[43] S. Ramasamy, R. Sabatini, A. Gardi, A unified approach to separation assurance
and Collision Avoidance for UAS operations and traffic management, in: 2017 Int.
Conf. Unmanned Aircr. Syst. ICUAS 2017, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1109/
ICUAS.2017.7991523.
[44] L.A. Tony, D. Ghose, A. Chakravarthy, Avoidance maps: a new concept in UAV
collision avoidance, in: 2017 Int. Conf. Unmanned Aircr. Syst. ICUAS 2017, 2017,
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICUAS.2017.7991382.
[45] L. Zhu, X. Cheng, F.G. Yuan, A 3D collision avoidance strategy for UAV with
physical constraints, Meas. J. Int. Meas. Confed (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.measurement.2015.09.006.
[46] E.T. Dill, S.D. Young, K.J. Hayhurst, SAFEGUARD: an assured safety net
technology for UAS, in: AIAA/IEEE Digit. Avion. Syst. Conf. - Proc., 2016, https://
doi.org/10.1109/DASC.2016.7778009.
[47] EUROCAE Working Group 105, Focus Area UTM - Report: Identification and Geo-
Fencing for Open and Specific UAV Categories, 2017.
[48] NASA, SAFEGUARD: reliable safety net technology for unmanned aircraft
systems. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=168&v=ljHfuC-GiEs
&feature=emb_title, 2015 accessed September 20, 2019.
[49] F. De Crescenzio, G. Miranda, F. Persiani, T. Bombardi, 3D obstacle avoidance
strategies for uas (unihabited aerial systems) mission planning and re-planning,
in: 8th AIAA Aviat. Technol. Integr. Oper. Conf., 2008, https://doi.org/10.2514/
6.2008-8962.
[50] P. Niklas, V. Andreas, K.R. Bernd, Minimum risk Low Altitude Airspace
integration for larger cargo UAS, in: ICNS 2017 - ICNS CNS/ATM Challenges UAS
Integr., 2017, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICNSURV.2017.8011946.
[51] C.W.A. Murray, M.L. Ireland, D. Anderson, On the response of an autonomous
quadrotor operating in a turbulent urban environment, in: AUVSI Unmanned
Syst., 2014.
[52] S.A. Raza, Autonomous UAV Control for Low-Altitude Flight in an Urban Gust
Environment, Carleton University, 2015.
[53] D. Galway, J. Etele, G. Fusina, Modeling of the urban gust environment with
application to autonomous flight, AIAA Atmos. Flight Mech. Conf. Exhib. (2008)
1–20, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2008-6565.
[54] T. Stathopoulos, Pedestrian level winds and outdoor human comfort, J. Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerod. (2006), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2006.06.011.
[55] E.J. Plate, H. Kiefer, Wind loads in urban areas, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. (2001),
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6105(01)00159-3.
[56] K. Cole, Reactive Trajectory Generation and Formation Control for Groups of
UAVs in Windy Environments, The George Washington University, 2018.
[57] J.W. Langelaan, N. Alley, J. Neidhoefer, Wind field estimation for small
unmanned aerial vehicles, J. Guid. Contr. Dynam. (2011), https://doi.org/
10.2514/1.52532.
[58] E.J. Plate, H. Kiefer, J. Wacker, Wind and urban climates, in: 5th Symp. Urban
Environ., 2004.
[59] D. Galway, J. Etele, G. Fusina, Modeling of urban wind field effects on unmanned
rotorcraft flight, J. Aircraft (2011), https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C031325.
[60] B.Z. Cybyk, B. McGrath, T.M. Frey, D.G. Drewry, J.F. Keane, G. Patnaik, Unsteady
urban airflows and their impact on small unmanned air system operations, AIAA
Atmos. Flight Mech. Conf. (2009), https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2009-6049.
[61] N. Gavrilovic, E. Benard, P. Pastor, J.-M. Moschetta, Performance improvement of
small unmanned aerial vehicles through gust energy harvesting, J. Aircraft 55
(2017) 1–14, https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C034531.
[62] J. Etele, Overview of Wind Gust Modelling with Application to Autonomous Low-
Level UAV Control, Def. R&D Canada-Ottawa, 2006.
[63] B.E. McGrath, B.Z. Cybyk, T.M. Frey, Environment-vehicle interaction modeling
for unmanned aerial system operations in complex airflow environments, Johns
Hopkins APL Tech. Dig. Applied Phys. Lab. (2012).
25
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726
[64] J. Jaewoo, S. D’Souza, M. Johnson, A. Ishihara, H. Modi, B. Nikaido, H. Hasseeb,
Applying required navigation performance concept for traffic management of
small unmanned aircraft systems, in: 30th Congress of the International Council
of the Aeronautical Sciences, 2016.
[65] V.S.R. Pappu, Y. Liu, J.F. Horn, J. Cooper, Wind gust estimation on a small VTOL
UAV, in: 7th AHS Tech. Meet. VTOL Unmanned Aircr. Syst. Auton., 2017.
[66] NOAA, Aviation Weather Forecasting: A History of Enhancing Air Flight Safety,
2019. https://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/foundations/aviation_weather/w
elcome.html.
[67] D. Axisa, T.P. DeFelice, Modern and prospective technologies for weather
modification activities: a look at integrating unmanned aircraft systems, Atmos.
Res. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2016.03.005.
[68] Z. Bottyán, Z. Tuba, A.Z. Gyöngyösi, Weather forecasting system for the
unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) missions with the special regard to visibility
prediction, Hungary (2016), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28091-2_2.
[69] Z. Bottyán, A.Z. Gyöngyösi, F. Wantuch, Z. Tuba, R. Kurunczi, P. Kardos,
Z. Istenes, T. Weidinger, K. Hadobács, Z. Szabó, M. Balczó, Á. Varga, A.B. Kircsi,
G. Horváth, Measuring and Modeling of Hazardous Weather Phenomena to
Aviation Using the Hungarian Unmanned Meteorological Aircraft System
(HUMAS), Idojaras., 2015.
[70] J.H. Kim, W.N. Chan, B. Sridhar, R.D. Sharman, Combined winds and turbulence
prediction system for automated air-traffic management applications, J. Appl.
Meteorol. Climatol. (2015), https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-14-0216.1.
[71] L. Jensen, Planning for Airport Noise, The Roar of Discontent, 2013.
[72] C. Al Haddad, E. Chaniotakis, A. Straubinger, K. Plötner, C. Antoniou, Factors
affecting the adoption and use of urban air mobility, Transp. Res. Part A Policy
Pract. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.12.020.
[73] B. Rao, A.G. Gopi, R. Maione, The societal impact of commercial drones, Technol.
Soc. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2016.02.009.
[74] P.D. Vascik, R.J. Hansman, Scaling constraints for urban air mobility operations:
air traffic control, ground infrastructure, and noise, in: 2018 Aviat. Technol.
Integr. Oper. Conf., 2018, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-3849.
[75] K.R. Antcliff, M.D. Moore, K.H. Goodrich, Silicon valley as an early adopter for
on-demand civil VTOL operations, in: 16th AIAA Aviat. Technol. Integr. Oper.
Conf., 2016, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2016-3466.
[76] B.A. Seeley, Regional sky transit III: the primacy of noise, in: AIAA SciTech Forum
- 55th AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet., 2017, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2017-0208.
[77] International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(UAS) Circular, Cir 328, an/190, Quebec, Canada, 2011.
[78] E. Öhrström, A. Skånberg, H. Svensson, A. Gidlöf-Gunnarsson, Effects of road
traffic noise and the benefit of access to quietness, J. Sound Vib. (2006), https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2005.11.034.
[79] A. Newman, P. Enright, T. Manolio, E. Haponik, P. Wahl, Sleep distrubance,
psychosocial correlates, and cardiovascular disease in older Adults : the
cardiovascular health study, J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. (1997), https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1532-5415.1997.tb00970.x.
[80] S.A. Stansfeld, M.P. Matheson, Noise pollution: non-auditory effects on health, Br.
Med. Bull. 68 (2003) 243–257, https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldg033.
[81] A. Muzet, Environmental noise, sleep and health, Sleep Med. Rev. (2007),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2006.09.001.
[82] European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation, Environmental issues for
aviation, 2017. http://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/environmental-issues-aviat
ion.
[83] O. Zaporozhets, V. Tokarev, K. Attenborough, Aircraft Noise: Assessment,
Prediction and Control, 2011, https://doi.org/10.3397/1.3696976.
[84] A. Brown, W. Harris, A vehicle design and optimization model for on-demand
aviation, in: AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Struct. Struct. Dyn. Mater. Conf., 2018.
[85] N.P. Randt, S. Sartorius, M. Urban, Requirements and concepts of operations for a
personalized air transport system in 2050, 52nd AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet. - AIAA
Sci. Technol. Forum Expo. SciTech 2014 (2014) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.2514/
6.2014-0683.
[86] A. Filippone, Aircraft noise prediction, Prog. Aero. Sci. (2014), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.paerosci.2014.02.001.
[87] N. Intaratep, W. Nathan Alexander, W.J. Deveport, S.M. Grace, A. Dropkin,
Experimental study of quadcopter acoustics and performance at static thrust
conditions, in: 22nd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conf. 2016, 2016, https://doi.
org/10.2514/6.2016-2873.
[88] N. Kloet, S. Watkins, R. Clothier, Acoustic signature measurement of small multi-
rotor unmanned aircraft systems, Int. J. Micro Air Veh. (2017), https://doi.org/
10.1177/1756829316681868.
[89] G. Sinibaldi, L. Marino, Experimental analysis on the noise of propellers for small
UAV, Appl. Acoust. (2013), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2012.06.011.
[90] A. Cambray, E. Pang, S.A. Showkat Ali, D. Rezgui, M. Azarpeyvand, Investigation
towards a better understanding of noise generation from UAV propellers, in: 2018
AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conf., 2018, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-3450.
[91] A. Christian, R. Cabell, Initial investigation into the psychoacoustic properties of
small unmanned aerial system noise. AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference,
2017, p. 4051.
[92] S.A. Rizzi, D.L. Palumbo, J. Rathsam, A. Christian, M. Rafaelof, Annoyance to
noise produced by a distributed electric propulsion high-lift system, in: 23rd
AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conf. 2017, 2017, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2017-
4050.
[93] Z. Ning, H. Hu, An experimental study on the aerodynamics and aeroacoustic
characteristics of small propellers of UAV applications, in: 54th AIAA Aerosp. Sci.
Meet., 2016, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2016-1785.
A. Bauranov and J. Rakas
[94] Booz Allen Hamilton, Urban Air Mobility (UAM) Market Study - Final Report,
2018.
[95] H. Kwon, J. Kim, Y. Park, Applying LSA text mining technique in envisioning
social impacts of emerging technologies: the case of drone technology,
Technovation (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2017.01.001.
[96] Airbus, An Assessment of Public Perception of Urban Air Mobility, UAM), 2019.
[97] I. Shaw, The urbanization of drone warfare: policing surplus populations in the
dronepolis, Geograph. Helv. (2016), https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-71-19-2016.
[98] I. Shaw, Understanding empire: technology, power, politics. https://understandi
ngempire.wordpress.com/2016/02/03/the-urbanization-of-drone-warfare-polici
ng-surplus-populations-in-the-dronepolis/, 2016.
[99] R.A. Martin, A. Hall, C. Brinton, K. Franke, J.D. Hedengren, Privacy aware
mission planning and video masking for UAV systems. AIAA Infotech @ Aerosp,
2016, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2016-0250.
[100] K. Hartmann, K. Giles, UAV exploitation: a new domain for cyber power, in: Int.
Conf. Cyber Conflict, CYCON, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1109/
CYCON.2016.7529436.
[101] D. Solove, “I’ve Got Nothing to Hide” and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy,
San Diego Law Rev., 2007.
[102] E. Snowden, Permanent Record, Pan McMillan, 2019.
[103] R.L. Finn, D. Wright, M. Friedewald, Seven types of privacy, in: Eur. Data Prot.
Coming Age, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5170-5_1.
[104] J. Villasenor, Observations from above: unmanned aircraft systems and privacy,
Harv. J. Law Publ. Pol. (2013).
[105] FAA, Press Release – U.S. Department of Transportation Issues Two Much-
Anticipated Drone Rules to Advance Safety and Innovation in the United States,
2020.
[106] E. Mueller, P. Kopardekar, K. Goodrich, Enabling airspace integration for high-
density on-demand mobility operations, in: 17th AIAA Aviat. Technol. Integr.
Oper. Conf. 2017, 2017, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2017-3086.
[107] D. Hackenberg, Grand Challenge Overview, 2018.
[108] D.M.B. Euclides, C. Pinto Neto, P.S.C. Jorge Rady de Almeida Junior, João Batista
Camargo Junior, TRAJECTORY-BASED URBAN AIR MOBILITY (UAM)
OPERATIONS SIMULATOR (TUS), AxXiv Prepr. ArXiv1908.08651, 2019.
[109] Y. Zeng, J. Lyu, R. Zhang, Cellular-connected UAV: potential, challenges, and
promising technologies, IEEE Wireless Communications 26 (1) (2018) 120–127.
[110] H. Nawaz, M. Husnain, A. Laghari, UAV Communication Networks Issues: a
Review, Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 2020, pp. 1–21.
[111] M. Logan, E. Bird, L. Hernandez, M. Menard, Operational considerations of small
UAS in urban canyons, in: AIAA SciTech 2020 Forum, 2020.
[112] F. Peirong, L. Wenyi, C. Xiaowei, L. Mingquan, RTK with the assistance of an IMU-
based pedestrian navigation algorithm for smartphones, Sensors 19 (16) (2019)
3586.
[113] S. Bijjahalli, R. Sabatini, A. Gardi, GNSS performance modelling and
augmentation for urban air mobility, Sensors 19 (19) (2019) 4209.
[114] D. Shibasaki, Low cost GNSS receiver system for high precision GNSS data
processing. http://www.unoosa.org/documents/pdf/psa/activities/2019/UN_
Fiji_2019/S2-10.pdf, 2019.
[115] RTCA, Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards for Automatic
Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B), DO-242A, 2002.
[116] F.L. Templin, R. Jain, G. Sheffield, P. Taboso-Ballesteros, D. Ponchak,
Requirements for an integrated UAS CNS architecture. ICNS 2017 - ICNS CNS/
ATM Challenges UAS Integr, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1109/
ICNSURV.2017.8011909.
[117] E. Sunil, J. Hoekstra, J. Ellerbroek, F. Bussink, D. Nieuwenhuisen,
A. Vidosavljevic, S. Kern, Metropolis : relating airspace structure and capacity for
extreme traffic densities, 11th USA/europe air traffic manag, Res. Dev. Semin.
341508 (2015) 1–10.
[118] J.M. Moschetta, K. Namuduri, Introduction to UAV systems. UAV Networks
Commun, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316335765.002.
[119] DroneII, Infographic | the 5 levels of drone autonomy. https://www.droneii.co
m/project/drone-autonomy-levels, 2019.
[120] NIAG SG75, Pre-feasibility Study on UAV Autonomous Operations, 2004.
[121] H.M. Huang, K. Pavek, B. Novak, J. Albus, E. Messina, A framework for autonomy
levels for unmanned systems (ALFUS), in: AUVSI’s Unmanned Syst. North Am.
2005 - Proc., 2005.
[122] H.-M. Huang, Autonomy levels for unmanned systems (ALFUS) framework.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1660877.1660883, 2007.
[123] B. Clough, Metrics, Schmetrics! How the Heck Do You Determine a UAV’s
Autonomy Anyway?, Security, 2002.
[124] S. Driessens, P.E.I. Pounds, Towards a more efficient quadrotor configuration,
IEEE Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst. (2013), https://doi.org/10.1109/
IROS.2013.6696530.
[125] H. Edge, J. Collins, A. Brown, M. Coatney, B. Roget, N. Slegers, A. Johnson,
Lighter-than-air and Pressurized Structures Technology for Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles, UAVs), 2010.
[126] T. Chang, H. Yu, Improving electric powered UAVs’ endurance by incorporating
battery dumping concept, in: Procedia Eng., 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
proeng.2014.12.522.
[127] K. Vicencio, T. Korras, K.A. Bordignon, I. Gentilini, Energy-optimal path planning
for six-rotors on multi-target missions, IEEE Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst. (2015),
https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2015.7353714.
[128] F. Morbidi, R. Cano, D. Lara, Minimum-energy path generation for a quadrotor
UAV, Proc. - IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1109/
ICRA.2016.7487285.
26
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726
[129] S. Ahmed, A. Mohamed, K. Harras, M. Kholief, S. Mesbah, Energy efficient path
planning techniques for UAV-based systems with space discretization, in: IEEE
Wirel. Commun. Netw. Conf. WCNC, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1109/
WCNC.2016.7565126.
[130] G. Hunter, P. Wei, Service-oriented separation assurance for small UAS traffic
management, in: Integr. Commun. Navig. Surveill. Conf. ICNS, 2019, https://doi.
org/10.1109/ICNSURV.2019.8735165.
[131] E. Hermand, T.W. Nguyen, M. Hosseinzadeh, E. Garone, Constrained control of
UAVs in geofencing applications, in: MED 2018 - 26th Mediterr. Conf. Control
Autom., 2018, https://doi.org/10.1109/MED.2018.8443035.
[132] S. Zhang, D. Wei, M.Q. Huynh, J.X. Quek, X. Ma, L. Xie, Model predictive control
based dynamic geofence system for unmanned aerial vehicles, AIAA Inf. Syst.
Infotech Aerospace 2017 (2017), https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2017-0675.
[133] M.N. Steven, B.T. Coloe, E.M. Atkins, Platform-independent geofencing for low
altitude UAS operations, in: 15th AIAA Aviat. Technol. Integr. Oper. Conf, 2015,
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2015-3329.
[134] J.T. Luxhoj, System safety modeling of alternative geofencing configurations for
small UAS, Int. J. Aviat. Aeronaut. Aerosp. (2016), https://doi.org/10.15394/
ijaaa.2016.1105.
[135] S. Balachandran, A. Narkawicz, C. Muñoz, M. Consiglio, A geofence violation
prevention mechanism for small UAS, in: 31st Congr, Int. Counc. Aeronaut. Sci.
ICAS 2018 (2018).
[136] S.E. Campbell, D.A. Clark, J.E. Evans, Preliminary Weather Information Gap
Analysis for UAS Operations, Lexington, MA, 2017.
[137] S.R. López, From the battlefield to the streets: the privacy right in the drone era,
Rev. Derecho Del Estado, 2015.
[138] FAA, FAA UTM Concept of Operations - v1.0, 2018.
[139] NASA, UTM: Air Traffic Management for Low-Altitude Drones, 2018.
[140] P. Kopardekar, J. Rios, T. Prevot, M. Johnson, J. Jung, J.E. Robinson, Unmanned
aircraft system traffic management (UTM) concept of operations, in: 16th AIAA
Aviat. Technol. Integr. Oper. Conf., 2016.
[141] S. Nag, J. Jung, K. Inamdar, Communicating with unmanned aerial swarm
automatic dependent surveillance transponders, Proc. IEEE Sensors (2017),
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSENS.2017.8234227.
[142] FAA, Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) Concepts of
Operations V2, vol. 0, 2020.
[143] B. Lascara, A. Lacher, M. DeGarmo, D. Maroney, R. Niles, L. Vempati, Urban Air
Mobility Airspace Integration Concepts, 2019.
[144] SESAR Joint Undertaking, U-Space Blueprint, Luxembourg, 2017.
[145] SESAR Joint Undertaking, European ATM Master Plan : Roadmap for the Safe
Integration of Drones into All Classes of Airspace, 2018, pp. 1–33.
[146] Dagi Geister, Concept for Urban Airspace Integration DLR, U-Space Blueprint,
2017.
[147] J.M. Hoekstra, S. Kern, O. Schneider, F. Knabe, B. Lamiscarre, 341508, Metropolis
– Concept design (2015) 1–56.
[148] C. Le Tallec, P. Le Blaye, M. Kasbari, Low level RPAS traffic management
(LLRTM) concept of operation, in: 17th AIAA Aviat, Technol. Integr. Oper. Conf.
2017 (2017), https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2017-3938.
[149] C. Le Tallec, P. Le Blaye, Low level RPAS traffic identification and management,
EUCASS, MILAN, Italy, 2017.
[150] K.H. Low, L. Gan, S. Mao, A preliminary study in managing safe and efficient low-
altitude unmanned aircraft system operations in a densely built-up urban
environment. Int. Symp. Enhanc. Solut. Aircr. Veh., Surveill. Appl., 2014,
pp. 1–10.
[151] CAAC, Low-Altitude Connected Drone Flight Safety Test Report, 2018.
[152] Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency ( JAXA ), Roadmap for the Application and
Technology Development of UAVs in Japan, 2017.
[153] H. Ushijima, UTM project in Japan, Glob. UTM Conf. 2017 (2017).
[154] Amazon, Revising the Airspace Model for the Safe Integration of Small Unmanned
Aircraft Systems, 2015.
[155] Amazon, Determining Safe Access with a Best-Equipped, Best-Served Model for
Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 2015.
[156] Airbus, Blueprint for the Sky: the Roadmap for the Safe Integration of
Autonomous Aircraft, 2018.
[157] Boeing Next, Flight path for the future OF mobility. http://www.boeing.
com/NeXt/common/docs/Boeing_Future_of_Mobility_White Paper.pdf, 2019.
[158] EmbraerX, Flight Plan 2030: an AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CONCEPT for
URBAN AIR MOBILITY, 2019.
[159] R. Golding, Metrics to Characterize Dense Airspace Traffic, Altiscope Report TR-4,
2018.
[160] J.M. Hoekstra, J. Maas, M. Tra, E. Sunil, How do layered airspace design
parameters affect airspace capacity and Safety ?, in: 7th Int. Conf. Res. Air Transp.
(ICRAT 2016), 2016.
[161] R. Young, Advances in UAS ground-based detect and avoid capability, in: 2019
Integr. Commun. Navig. Surveill. Conf, 2019.
[162] V. Bulusu, L. Sedov, V. Polishchuk, Extended Abstract: Noise Estimation for
Future Large-Scale Small UAS Operations, NOISECON, 2017.
[163] FAA, Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Washington DC, 2019.
Glossary
ADS-B: Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast
ATC: Air Traffic Control
ATM: Air Traffic Management
BFR: Basic Flight Rules
A. Bauranov and J. Rakas Progress in Aerospace Sciences 125 (2021) 100726

BVLOS: Beyond visual line of sight ONERA: The Office National d’Etudes et de Recherches Aérospatiales
BZ: Business zone PAV: Personal Air Vehicles
CNS: Communication, Navigation and Surveillance RPAS: Remotely Piloted Aircraft System
DLR: Deutsches Zentrum für Luft und Raumfahrt RZ: Residential Zone
EUROCAE: European Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment sUAS: small UAS
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration SWIM: System Wide Information Management
FLARM: Flight Alarm TLC: Technical Capability Levels
GAFS: General Aviation Flight System UAM: Urban Air Mobility
GPS: Global Positioning System UAS: Unmanned Aerial Systems
ICAO: The International Civil Aviation Organization UATM: Urban Air Traffic Management
ID: Identity UAV: Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
JAXA: Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency UML: Urban Air Mobility (UAM) Maturity Levels
LLRTM: Low Level RPAS Traffic Management System UOMS: UAS Aviation Operation Management System
LTE: Long-Term Evolution UTM: Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Traffic Management
MFR: Managed Flight Rules V2V: Vehicle-to-vehicle
NAS: National Airspace System VDL: Very High Frequency (VHF) Data Link
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, The VLOS: Visual-line-of-sight
NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organization, The VTOL: Vertical Take-off and Landing
NFZ: No Flying Zone

27